asciidoc-pubkit 1.0.3 → 1.2.0

checksums.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 SHA256:
-  metadata.gz: 1ca3e56810daf83687c0758172892f89e2acba8bc0d16c909fa0da8183617179
-  data.tar.gz: 69ba46436e3316058ff76f916325db0d3c6e94ce8a2700915cdd25c20d53e99a
+  metadata.gz: 6148912a889b61a943c121c307ae696c49f861f7cb734265af0b1a9333d50966
+  data.tar.gz: ce07e6f2d66c7ab3e23a8dd39325b297f9f3d3f6c715fb001c2604052307f999
 SHA512:
-  metadata.gz: f2d203eec585c19961aab955cf1d3ddd98712569c14e9d85898f810750d24a5f8a3e8db2752503ec74094e58ffcb4ed6a9eb6932e23512dc5a3d688350a95021
-  data.tar.gz: 301e914f2bc66bdfbc2342c7beacda5d8b47ac6a30c50c51afdf3b1695212d45bc948ae73fdf20ea505431f0664e4ebc42c3511f668f54eb98a7f105a1007aad
+  metadata.gz: a08ca5477ee8785bbe7623a108e2cd22ad8c1f4c6900e7500d446502674007db5b29192c9e02abdeacb931a26a78a45070b6f19b57c0de51c4bd20d2da884afe
+  data.tar.gz: ee0b90c82c362f7b0da5b1807cf187ad2d330c24a5ce11cfa599f25d50c35fa99814bb154d148f3b747c87bfeaf965dea76f22e283e8e2d53685341203239bf7

data/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,78 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## Unreleased
+
+## 1.2.0 - 2026-10-12
+
+- Require concrete alternative comparisons for broad or everyday wording in
+  shared Japanese criteria, candidate questions and review prompts. Distinguish
+  understandable wording from an editorial keep decision; prohibit automatic
+  keep records and inherited paragraph summaries in reporting helpers. Add
+  terminology examples for safety margins and tree structures while preserving
+  formal names, values and factual scope. Verification remains mechanical.
+
+- Add `流れ` as an `abstract-reference` hint for prose and list text in MeCab
+  and literal modes. Extend shared criteria to identify processing order,
+  information transfer, invocation paths, work procedures and state changes;
+  compare concrete alternatives and reject interchangeable technical-term substitutions.
+  Add four revision calibration pairs (59 total) and regression coverage for
+  positions, exclusions, custom rules, prompt delivery and unchanged sources.
+  Existing sessions retain their saved rules and criteria; no automatic
+  replacement or semantic verification is added.
+
+- Add sentence-ending decisions to the shared Japanese criteria, with contextual
+  revision and keep examples for scope guides, operations, capabilities, checks,
+  comparisons, uncertainty, and history. Separate body predicates from heading
+  form and preserve negation strength. Add twelve revision calibration pairs
+  (55 total), update the judge rubric, and retain saved-session criteria.
+  Detector terms, automatic replacements, and verification semantics are unchanged;
+  no AI proofreading improvement has been measured.
+
+- Add `--agent codex|claude` to skill install, status and upgrade for local
+  project registration in `.agents/skills` or `.claude/skills`. Keep `--dir`
+  for custom destinations; reject combining both options. Both agents receive
+  the same Agent Skills format, without invoking an agent or changing settings.
+
+- Add local bundled-skill list, install, status and upgrade commands with explicit
+  destinations, version/hash registration, local-change and downgrade protection,
+  staged replacement and restoration on failure. No AI invocation, network skill
+  fetching or review-baseline mutation is added. Update the tutorials to register
+  and maintain skills with these commands instead of manual copying.
+
+- Rewrite the CLI tutorial and skill integration guide for arbitrary AsciiDoc
+  book projects. Replace publisher-specific paths with generic single-file and
+  included-chapter examples, make project instructions and review records optional,
+  and retain the current Japanese-review language boundary.
+
+## 1.1.0 — 2026-10-08
+
+- Add an illustrated agent-review tutorial with a reproducible sample, diagnosis
+  and revision handoffs, separate heading/prose/list phases, verification recovery,
+  and a CyberGarage book workflow example. Add a skill integration guide and
+  packaged minimal SKILL.md example. Keep model review externally initiated
+  and distinguish mechanical preservation from editorial completion.
+
+- Add `document toc --json` with parsed/source titles, outline positions, parent
+  relationships, section IDs and source cursor locations; keep text output unchanged.
+- Add heading-only `review scan --depth N` and `review.heading_depth` configuration.
+  Save the selection limit, retain the full reference outline/body context, protect
+  deeper titles, and reject reused titles before filtering by depth.
+- Add heading-session `review prompt --view outline` with whole-outline criteria,
+  numbered navigation and editable/reference-only labels. Freeze the criteria at
+  scan time; old sessions keep full prompts and verification, and require a fresh
+  baseline in a different directory for outline view. No automatic editing, model
+  invocation, decision validation or structural-edit permission is added.
+
+- Add evidence-based human-role criteria and heading/body terminology alignment.
+  Keep developer, user, evaluator, author, and human-versus-AI meanings distinct
+  without prescribing occupations, permissions, or automatic replacements.
+- Add standalone 人 review hints for prose, list text, and headings, excluding
+  compounds and counts in MeCab and literal modes. Preserve allow lists, inline
+  protection, custom rule precedence, and existing saved-session baselines.
+- Clarify task-specific versus general editorial coverage and separately
+  authorized table, figure, and alternative-text synchronization. No new CLI
+  selection filter, decision validation, or semantic verification is added.
+
 ## 1.0.3 — 2026-10-07
 
 - Adapt yomiyasu v1.0.8 guidance to preserve comparison axes, completed/current/

data/README.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ and books on health, exercise, and sports science published under
 The experience informs the toolkit's writing criteria, contextual review prompts,
 and checks for preserving manuscript content during revision.
 
-Version 1.0.3 provides document inspection, explicit prose-only mechanical
+Version 1.2.0 provides document inspection, explicit prose-only mechanical
 replacements, and Japanese manuscript review. Inspect a book's outline,
 metadata, and local cross-references; preview and apply your replacement rules;
 then review and verify edits against a saved baseline.
@@ -26,11 +26,11 @@ Japanese manuscript excerpts and rule terms retain their original text.
 
 ## Available features
 
-The following commands are available in version 1.0.3.
+The following commands are available in version 1.2.0.
 
 | Feature | Commands | Behavior |
 | --- | --- | --- |
-| [Document outline](docs/document-commands.md#document-commands) | `document toc` | Print parsed section titles, including book parts and chapters, with optional depth and outline numbering |
+| [Document outline](docs/document-commands.md#document-commands) | `document toc` | Print parsed section titles as text or JSON, including source locations, with optional depth and outline numbering |
 | [Book metadata](docs/document-commands.md#document-commands) | `document info` | Extract book attributes as text or JSON |
 | [Cross-reference checks](docs/document-commands.md#document-commands) | `document check-xrefs` | Report unresolved local cross-references with source locations |
 | [Document-title index](docs/document-commands.md#document-commands) | `document index` | Generate an alphabetical AsciiDoc index from English document titles and IDs |
@@ -43,6 +43,24 @@ The following commands are available in version 1.0.3.
 | [Baseline verification](docs/review-workflow.md#verify) | `review verify` | Check edited sources against a saved baseline for mechanical preservation; meaning is not verified |
 | [Manuscript scoring](docs/scoring.md#score-an-asciidoc-manuscript) | `review score` | Report a prose candidate-density score; explicit `--agent codex` or `--agent claude` optionally invokes a local AI CLI for readability ratings |
 | [Writing criteria and prompts](docs/writing.md#writing-commands) | `writing criteria`, `writing prompt` | Print Japanese prose criteria or generate a writing prompt without a manuscript or MeCab |
+| [Skill registration](docs/skill-commands.md) | `skill list`, `skill install`, `skill status`, `skill upgrade` | Register bundled skills for Codex or Claude and inspect or upgrade managed copies while protecting local changes |
+
+The 1.2.0 [sentence-ending guidance](docs/writing.md#writing-commands)
+adds contextual revision and keep examples, preserving capabilities, uncertainty,
+comparison strength, and body sentences separately from heading form. It adds
+no detector terms or automatic replacements; development calibration includes
+59 pairs, without a measured claim of improved AI proofreading.
+
+The 1.2.0 [default rules](docs/rules-and-coverage.md) add `流れ` as an
+`abstract-reference` hint for prose and list text. Review processing order,
+information transfer and state changes in context; compare concrete alternatives and
+prefer accurate technical terms without automatic substitutions. Existing sessions keep their saved
+rules and criteria; start a new scan to use the update.
+
+Version 1.2.0 also requires comparison with concrete alternatives for broad or
+everyday wording. Review prompts reject automatic keep judgments and passage
+summaries used as candidate decisions; missing comparisons remain pending.
+Verification continues to check mechanical preservation only.
 
 Version 1.0.1 extended the [shared writing criteria](docs/writing.md#writing-commands)
 with structural comparison before and after revision and preservation of sentence
@@ -53,6 +71,24 @@ Version 1.0.3 additionally preserves comparison axes, temporal roles,
 and known actions in unclear passages, separating source uncertainty from editorial
 questions. The evaluation guide describes the expanded corpus and calibration.
 
+Version 1.1.0 adds contextual human-role guidance and standalone `人`
+review hints, with terminology alignment and task-specific coverage reporting.
+These remain advisory; they do not automatically replace manuscript words or
+expand the protected edit scopes. See the [review workflow](docs/review-workflow.md).
+
+Version 1.1.0 also adds [outline review](docs/outline-review.md) with `document toc --json`,
+`review scan --scope headings --depth N`, and `review prompt --view outline`.
+Review subject coverage, heading granularity and terminology with saved body
+evidence while protecting deeper titles, structure and section IDs. Full prompts
+and unlimited heading selection remain the defaults.
+
+Version 1.2.0 [skill commands](docs/skill-commands.md) add `skill list`,
+`skill install NAME --agent codex|claude`, `skill status` and `skill upgrade`.
+Use `--dir PATH` instead for a custom destination. Register a
+bundled review skill, inspect its state and update unchanged copies from the
+running pubkit package. Local changes and unmanaged copies stay protected.
+These commands are included in the 1.2.0 gem.
+
 ## Requirements and scope
 
 Ruby 3.2 or later is required; RubyGems installs Asciidoctor and the other Ruby
@@ -85,11 +121,16 @@ asciidoc-pubkit --help
 ```
 
 To update, run `gem update asciidoc-pubkit`. For Bundler, add
-`gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.0.3'` to your project's `Gemfile` and run commands
+`gem 'asciidoc-pubkit', '~> 1.2.0'` to your project's `Gemfile` and run commands
 through `bundle exec`. See [source installation and local checkout usage](docs/installation.md).
 
 ## Quick start
 
+Follow the [agent review tutorial](docs/agent-review-tutorial.md) for a complete
+scan, prompt, Codex/Claude handoff, revision and verification walkthrough.
+For a reusable agent workflow, see [skill integration](docs/skill-integration.md).
+
+
 Run these commands from the manuscript directory:
 
 ```sh
@@ -125,7 +166,7 @@ asciidoc-pubkit writing prompt --lang ja --output writing-prompt.md
 
 Existing review sessions require the exact tool version that created them.
 Before upgrading, finish ongoing reviews with that version or preserve their
-baselines and start a new review in a separate directory with v1.0.3. A new
+baselines and start a new review in a separate directory with v1.2.0. A new
 scan cannot verify preservation relative to an earlier baseline.
 
 ## Documentation
@@ -134,7 +175,11 @@ scan cannot verify preservation relative to an earlier baseline.
 | --- | --- |
 | [Installation](docs/installation.md) | RubyGems, Bundler, source, local checkout, MeCab/IPADIC |
 | [Document commands](docs/document-commands.md) | Outline, metadata, cross-references, English-title indexes |
+| [Outline review](docs/outline-review.md) | JSON outline, heading-depth selection, whole-outline prompts and preservation |
 | [Prose replacements](docs/replacements.md) | Rule format, imports, regex compatibility, preview/apply, preservation |
+| [Skill commands](docs/skill-commands.md) | List/install/status/upgrade, managed files, local changes and recovery |
+| [Skill integration](docs/skill-integration.md) | Register and maintain a skill, then orchestrate review in any book project |
+| [Agent review tutorial](docs/agent-review-tutorial.md) | Illustrated first review, agent instructions, sequential scopes and verification recovery |
 | [Review workflow](docs/review-workflow.md) | Scanning, heading review, prompts, sessions, verification, exit codes |
 | [List review](docs/list-review.md) | Separate list sessions, editable items, protected syntax |
 | [Scoring](docs/scoring.md) | Candidate density, optional AI readability ratings, output |

data/data/heading-rules.ja.yml

@@ -14,6 +14,10 @@ terms:
     - さまざまなこと
     - 入口
     question: 'Check whether the heading identifies the actual subject, operation or comparison. Use the section as evidence; apply the shared role-metaphor criteria to 入口 and preserve section IDs. Do not invent missing specificity.'
+  heading-human-role:
+    terms:
+    - 人
+    question: 'Identify the supported human role from the section. Consider developer, user, evaluator, author, or human-versus-AI wording only from evidence; keep general populations and established autonomy measures. Do not automatically replace 人 with 開発者.'
 fixed_titles:
 - はじめに
 - 本書の構成

data/data/review-rules.ja.yml

@@ -14,7 +14,10 @@ terms:
     # Components, actors, and hierarchical relationships.
     - 構成要素
     - 部品
+    # Sequences, transfers, and state changes require contextual review.
+    - 流れ
     - 開発者
+    - 人
     - 祖先
     - 子孫
     # Scope, separation, and organization.
@@ -36,10 +39,15 @@ terms:
     - 余白
     # Event or operation wording requires context, not a fixed synonym.
     - 発火
-    question: Identify the concrete referent, components, role, or measurable work.
+    question: Identify the concrete referent, components, role, or measurable work,
+      then compare a concrete expression or established technical term using the shared
+      criteria. Recoverable meaning alone does not justify keeping broad wording.
       For 入口, apply the shared role-metaphor criteria; a clear referent alone is
       not a sufficient reason to keep vague operation wording. Keep
-      established technical meanings. For 木 and 余白, consider a context-appropriate
+      established technical meanings. For standalone 人, identify the supported
+      human role; consider developer, user, evaluator, author, or human-versus-AI
+      wording only from evidence. Keep general populations and established
+      autonomy measures; do not automatically replace 人 with 開発者. For 木 and 余白, consider a context-appropriate
       katakana term (such as ツリー or マージン) only when it names the intended concept.
   weak-predicate:
     terms:
@@ -139,8 +147,10 @@ terms:
     - 終えられます
     - 抜けられます
     - 解消する
-    question: Check whether the purpose, operation, or result is clear from the surrounding
-      paragraph. Preserve negation and conditions.
+    question: Identify the purpose, operation, and result, then compare a more precise
+      verb or established technical term using the shared criteria. An understandable
+      original is not by itself a reason to keep it. Record the alternative and the
+      passage-specific comparison. Preserve negation, conditions, and responsibility.
   vague-degree:
     terms:
     - 浅い

data/data/writing/ja/criteria.md

@@ -3,10 +3,12 @@
 ## Contents
 
 - Start with the paragraph's technical purpose
+- Identify human actors by their supported roles
 - Replace abstraction with the thing being discussed
 - Give weak predicates a concrete action or consequence
 - Explain metaphorical operations from evidence
 - Distinguish instructions, behavior, and capabilities
+- Review sentence endings by their role
 - Make relationships explicit
 - Compare structure before and after revision
 - Keep claims within their evidence and purpose
@@ -34,9 +36,43 @@ individual phrases. A short sentence is not automatically clear; omitted
 subjects, objects, complements, and referents must still be recoverable from the
 adjacent sentences.
 
+## Identify human actors by their supported roles
+
+Treat `人` as a cue to identify the actor, not as a forbidden word or a
+replacement instruction. Determine who performs the operation from the
+paragraph, neighboring context, and source evidence before naming a role.
+
+| Supported role in the passage | Possible wording |
+| --- | --- |
+| Designing or implementing a system, test, or execution environment | 開発者・設計者 |
+| Requesting work, operating a UI, approving an operation, or selecting a workflow | 利用者・ユーザー |
+| Reviewing samples or calibrating scoring criteria | 評価担当者 |
+| Authoring a document whose authority is being discussed | 文書の作成者 |
+| Contrasting human judgment with a model or program | 人間・人間側 |
+
+These are context-dependent examples, not a mandatory glossary. Follow the
+book's established terms. A developer can also be a user; these role names do
+not imply separate people, new permissions, qualifications, or staffing.
+Do not infer `開発者` merely because the book concerns software. For example,
+`人が候補を選ぶ` can become `利用者が候補を選ぶ` when the application displays
+candidates for selection, while constructing those candidates can be a developer's
+role. A role change must not narrow who may perform the documented operation.
+
+Keep general populations, established research terminology, and human-versus-AI
+comparisons when specificity would change their scope. `人の介入` can name a
+measure of autonomy, and `多くの人` need not mean only developers. Do not treat
+`個人`, `人数`, or `3人` as ambiguous actor wording. If the actor cannot be
+established, record the missing evidence rather than assigning an occupation.
+When an actor is unnecessary, state the concrete form instead: a displayed table
+may be described as `表形式` instead of `人が読みやすい形`.
+
 ## Replace abstraction with the thing being discussed
 
 Identify both the referent and its role before retaining an abstract term.
+Understandability is an initial factual check, not a keep decision. For broad or
+everyday wording, compare a concrete alternative and prefer an accurate established
+technical term that narrows the intended meaning. Record the alternative and the
+specific benefit or loss; a summary of the passage does not establish this comparison.
 A named API, file, or command can make the referent recoverable while leaving
 its operation vague. Inspect terms such as:
 
@@ -47,12 +83,29 @@ its operation vague. Inspect terms such as:
 | 境界 | the two components and the call, data transfer, or ownership transfer between them |
 | 観点 | the actual comparison axis, such as type safety, shutdown behavior, allocation count, or supported OS |
 | 書き方 | syntax, implementation technique, API shape, or document notation |
+| 流れ | processing order, information transfer, invocation path, work procedure, or state changes |
 | 範囲・射程 | supported readers, covered subjects, applicable versions, or behavior guaranteed by an API |
 
 Do not improve a sentence by replacing one abstraction with another. For
 example, changing `費用` to `コスト` says nothing unless the sentence identifies
 what increases.
 
+Treat `流れ` as a cue to identify the described operation, not as a banned word.
+Even when the actors, transferred information, order, or conditions are clear,
+compare a more exact expression for the supported relationship. Prefer that
+expression when it clarifies the technical role; keep the original only with
+a specific comparison showing no improvement or a loss of scope. Examples include
+`処理順`, `情報の受け渡し`, `呼び出し経路`, or `作業手順`.
+Changing `流れ` to `処理フロー` alone does not add specificity. Use `シーケンス`
+for the order of calls or events, `データフロー` for data transfers and
+transformations, and `ライフサイクル` for creation, execution, termination or
+release only when those are the actual subject. These terms are not interchangeable;
+do not invent missing stages, narrow an explanation to data alone, or lose a
+branch condition merely to make the wording more technical. For example,
+`検査に成功した後だけ、実行関数を呼び出す流れです` already states the
+operation, order and condition and can remain unchanged only after comparing
+a direct description of that conditional invocation and finding no useful improvement.
+
 For role metaphors such as `入口`, check whether naming the actual operation or
 relationship gives the reader more useful information, even when the referent
 is already clear. Consider these alternatives only when evidence supports them:
@@ -179,6 +232,49 @@ require polite style. Resolve unintended style mixing separately from each
 sentence's function; changing `する` to `します` must not change advice into
 an asserted operation. Do not vary endings just to make these functions uniform.
 
+## Review sentence endings by their role
+
+Read the complete sentence and neighboring sentences before judging its ending.
+First identify whether it announces the section's scope, describes an actual
+operation, offers a capability, gives a checking procedure, or reports history
+or a future expectation. Then name its actor, object, condition, and consequence.
+Revise only when a more direct explanation preserves those relationships;
+otherwise retain the original wording and explain its role.
+
+| Ending and context | Decision to consider |
+| --- | --- |
+| `注目します`, `明らかにします`, `確認します`, or `たどります` in an introduction | Keep a useful scope or reading-order guide. If it only repeats an announcement, state the supported comparison, operation, or question directly; do not invent its answer. |
+| `戻します` or `組み立てます` in an operation description | Keep it when the transferred result, recipient, or constructed input is clear. Do not replace it with a noun or jargon merely to vary the ending. |
+| `使えます`, `組み込めます`, `選べます`, or `作れます` | Preserve the available option and its conditions. Changing to `使います` or `選びます` can falsely assert actual or automatic execution. |
+| `分かりません` | Identify whether the missing evidence prevents judgment, confirmation, or identification. Use `判断できません` or `確認できません` only when that operation fits; preserve what remains unknown. |
+| `別です` or `同じではありません` | Name the compared objects and the property, purpose, or evidence that differs. Distinguish definite non-identity from insufficient evidence to infer a result. |
+| `確認します` or `調べます` in a procedure | Keep an actual check, including its target, condition, and timing. Do not turn it into a capability or a claim that the check succeeded. |
+| `移りました` or another past ending | Keep a supported historical transition distinct from current behavior or a future plan. |
+
+For example, `会話形式の画面だけでは、実行できる操作の範囲は分かりません`
+can become `会話形式の画面だけでは、実行できる操作の範囲を判断できません`.
+Both retain the missing evidence and the same judgment target. By contrast,
+`処理結果が分かりません` cannot become `処理は失敗しました`: an unknown
+outcome is not an established failure.
+
+Retain `利用者は候補Aと候補Bから選べます` when it states an available choice;
+`利用者は候補Aと候補Bから選びます` would assert that selection occurs. Retain
+`実行側はツール結果をモデルへ戻します` when it describes the transfer;
+`実行結果のフィードバック` would lose the sentence's actor and predicate.
+
+Do not mechanically convert `別です` to `とは限りません`. For example,
+`AはJSONを、BはCSVを受け付けます。両者の入力形式は別です` establishes a
+definite difference. Changing the last sentence to `両者の入力形式が同じとは
+限りません` weakens that claim. When an event merely fails to establish another
+result, such as completion failing to establish test success, state that
+inference limit while retaining the original scope and strength of negation.
+
+Heading form and running-prose grammar are separate decisions. A project's
+noun-phrase heading policy does not authorize nominalizing body sentences or
+removing their predicates. A proposed ending alone cannot supply new subjects,
+mechanisms, constraints, or guarantees; obtain those from the actual passage
+and its evidence. Record meaningful keep decisions as well as revisions.
+
 ## Make relationships explicit
 
 Inspect a sentence when it:
@@ -356,7 +452,8 @@ Review unusual translations against the actual concept:
 
 | Wording to inspect | Context-dependent terminology |
 | --- | --- |
-| 木 | ツリー when referring to the data structure; keep literal trees and established mathematical usage |
+| 木 | ツリー構造・ツリー when referring to the data structure; preserve formal names such as モンテカルロ木探索 and literal or mathematical uses |
+| 安全余白 | 安全マージン when naming the reserved allowance for estimation or counting differences; retain its unit, value, and calculation |
 | 拡張点 | 拡張ポイント for the specific extension location or interface; 拡張機構 for the broader mechanism only when that is the intended referent |
 | 構築入口 | ビルドのエントリポイント only when the entry point starts a build, not object construction or initialization |
 | 実装の読解 | コードリーディング for reading code; 実装の解析 when analysis is the actual task |

data/data/writing/ja/headings.md

@@ -34,6 +34,17 @@ sections and procedures can intentionally use different forms.
 Repeated official terms and fixed section names are valid. Check duplicate
 siblings for ambiguity, without treating all repetition as a defect.
 
+## Follow terminology changes through the section
+
+When a heading introduces a technical term or clarifies a human role, check
+that the body uses it for the same operation and scope. Compare headings with
+the same role without making every section equally technical or equally long.
+Apply the shared human-actor criteria: `人の確認` may refer to a user's approval,
+an evaluator's review, or a general human-versus-AI distinction. Do not choose
+`開発者` solely from the book's subject. In a heading session, body text remains
+read-only; record needed body, table, figure, or alternative-text updates as
+separate proposals rather than changing them with the title.
+
 ## Respect the book's format
 
 The book owns preferred nominal or action forms, questions, fixed titles,

data/data/writing/ja/outline.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+## Whole-outline assessment
+
+Start with the book's intended readers, prerequisites, purpose and requested scope.
+Compare parts, chapters, parents, siblings and descendants before proposing title edits.
+Check subject coverage, reading order, granularity, terminology and distinctions between
+conceptual explanation, standards/research, comparisons and implementation where relevant.
+These roles are book-specific; do not impose the same chapter pattern or heading style.
+Follow the saved heading rules and book instructions; nominal preferences do not justify
+losing actors, objects, conditions, order or distinctions.
+Technical keywords must identify material actually explained. Do not turn input construction
+into an optimization guarantee or format convergence into a formal standard without evidence.
+
+The outline is navigation evidence, not proof that a title matches its section.
+Read the body context in this same prompt, including relevant descendants, before deciding.
+Where omitted tables, figures, code or other sources are needed, record needs-evidence and
+the required follow-up; do not invent support from the title or introduction alone.
+Distinguish selected editable titles from reference-only titles and covered source positions.
+Record each selected heading ID, current title, proposed title, keep/revise/needs-evidence,
+reason, body evidence and any separate body/table/figure synchronization proposal.
+Review coverage is the selected headings, not every heading visible in the outline.
+Chapter moves, merges, splits and hierarchy changes are separate structure proposals only;
+this view does not expand edit permissions or relax baseline verification.
+Verification remains mechanical and keeps meaning_verified: false.