---
name: update-status-table-in-definitive-article-guide
description: A page can look done while key checks are missing.
category: Knowledge System Maintenance
stage: —
definitive_article: /knowledge-system-maintenance
status: needs-work
---

# Update status table in Definitive Article Guide

A page can look done while key checks are missing. This guide records what was checked, what passed, and who owns the gaps. Start with the real audit notes and the current page list.

**The path:** Four check results → Evidence-based result → Saved record → Fix owner

**Start when:** The article audit has results to record, including any skipped, blocked or failed checks.

## Inputs

- The article identity, source revision and dated results for topic, structure, facts and links.
- [current article guide](https://blitzmetrics.com/definitive-article-guide/) and the current maintained audit register; its historical teaching table is not a live status database.
- The register’s declared status meanings and authority to save the scoped result.

## Steps

1. Read all four check results and the source revision each covers. Keep skipped, blocked and failed checks distinct; record a partial audit rather than inventing a full pass.
2. Confirm the current register and legend. If it uses Green/Yellow/Red for audits, Green requires all applicable checks to pass, Yellow records an existing page with unresolved requirements, and Red means missing or fundamentally broken. Use its declared blocked/unknown state when evidence cannot establish a result; propose a missing state instead of silently redefining colors.
3. Keep the contributor’s Task Library document-status claim separate from this audit assessment. Neither a “complete” label nor a green catalog badge proves a real task execution, current document readiness or client success.
4. Update only the correct row with the actual audit date, reviewed source revision, reviewer, proof link and concise result. Preserve prior dated entries; if the date field is absent, use [the evidence-preserving field setup](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=add-last-audited-column-to-definitive-article-guide-status-table#task-add-last-audited-column-to-definitive-article-guide-status-table).
5. Give each unresolved gap an exact next action and named owner. Set or request a due date through the existing workflow; do not invent ownership or mark an assigned fix complete.
6. Read back the saved row and compare it with the notes. Check the agreed inventory for missing rows or overdue audits, but leave unrelated historical rows intact and report inconsistencies separately.
7. If the register or legend cannot represent the evidence, draft the exact correction through [Draft a process-change proposal](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=create-sop-amendment-proposal-500-words#task-create-sop-amendment-proposal-500-words). Close the audit record only to the extent the actual checks and handoff support.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

[Quality assurance (QA)](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/) means checking the work against the agreed result.

- [ ] Result, date and source revision match the actual audit evidence.
- [ ] Contributor status, document review, execution count and client outcomes remain separate.
- [ ] The saved record preserves history and each unresolved issue has a real next owner or an explicit assignment gap.

## Example(s)

**Fictional teaching example. This is not a client result or proof of a completed run.**

A fictional audit passes topic and structure, finds a stale price, and cannot open one private evidence link. Record the stale claim and blocked link check with their owners. The contributor’s “complete” field stays unchanged pending the separate status process. The audit does not become Green because two of four checks passed.

## Handoff and Content Factory context

This work supports the [Content Factory, our four stages of using real content](https://blitzmetrics.com/content-factory/): Produce → Process → Post → Promote. Use the specific inputs and next task below to place the work; a maintenance task does not manufacture transcripts, clips or other stage outputs it does not call for.

The named article owner handles the specific fixes. [The audit coordinator](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=schedule-and-assign-quarterly-auditors#task-schedule-and-assign-quarterly-auditors) receives remaining coverage and overdue-review gaps.

## Run with an agent

Give the AI worker this recipe, the real Inputs above, the intended result and the actions already authorized. Ask it to return the saved output, checks, evidence and remaining owner. Check its work against this guide; loading a skill does not prove access, installation of a job, or successful execution. Keep media muted with volume at zero if playback is needed.

For recurring work, keep the actual trigger, owner and runtime in the job record. Scheduling and observed firings are separate. Do not create a schedule merely because this guide mentions a review interval.

## Record the real execution

Open the run record when the work starts. Keep the exact starting recipe revision, one execution ID, source evidence and actual state. Write a [meta article, the record of one run](https://blitzmetrics.com/meta-article-prompt/) with decisions, results, checks, failures and next owner. Link it to this task and register it through the [Task Library](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/) execution process. Writing is part of the work; public release follows existing authority.

Reuse the same execution ID for revisions, QA, meta writing and retries within that run. A blocked run stays open with its dependency and next owner; do not invent a finish time. Use supported findings to propose and verify a better recipe. A historical public-example count without distinct run IDs remains dated article volume, not verified execution frequency.


<!-- factory-layer:start -->

## Factory chain (do not treat this as isolated)

- **Phase:** —
- **Importance:** 2/5 `●●○○○` — frequency 2, revenue 1, gating 2 (supporting)
- **Suggested previous station:** —
- **Suggested next station:** —
These stations are generated neighbors, not verified prerequisites or handoffs. Follow the task’s actual Inputs and Handoff sections.
- **Handoff:** Save this task’s actual output, source, date and checks where the receiving owner can read them. Follow the Inputs and Handoff sections for its next step.

## Model routing (same factory, any engine)

- **This task's lane:** `any` — Any capable chat model (Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini). SOP following, drafts, checklists.
- **Single-engine path:** Use the capable AI app you already have. Check its required tools and access before starting. Pass the actual result and proof to the next task.
- **Optional multi-engine:** A tested local model may draft; a stronger model may review facts and voice. Use supported tools for approved actions. Pick models from observed quality and cost; a model name does not prove it can run this task.
- **Never** store the working state in one vendor's memory. Files in the Content Library are the bridge.

<!-- factory-layer:end -->
## Definitive article & links

- [Maintained source guide](https://blitzmetrics.com/knowledge-system-maintenance/)
- [This task in the Task Library](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=update-status-table-in-definitive-article-guide#task-update-status-table-in-definitive-article-guide)
- [Article Guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/)
- [current article guide](https://blitzmetrics.com/definitive-article-guide/)
- [How recipes and run records work together](https://localservicespotlight.com/meta-articles/)

## Review and evidence still needed

The inherited contributor status is `needs-work`. It is preserved, not promoted by this rewrite. That label alone does not verify document readiness, a client outcome, access or an executed task.

A real execution still needs its own source, reviewer, saved result and handoff evidence. The fictional example teaches the method; a real example with relevant proof is still needed where required. The task-specific flow above is source guidance; its visible presentation and the full document need a named reviewer and desktop/mobile checks.