---
name: verify-structural-completeness-against-8-step-framework
description: A clear guide should help you do the job and check the result.
category: Knowledge System Maintenance
stage: —
definitive_article: /knowledge-system-maintenance
status: complete
---

# Check structure against the current article guidelines

A clear guide should help you do the job and check the result. This guide finds missing parts, broken links, and hard-to-use pages. Start with the live page and the rules that apply to its purpose.

**The path:** Page role → Current requirements → Screen and link checks → Exact gaps

**Start when:** The article audit has checked topic fit and is ready to inspect the page against current structural rules.

## Inputs

- The current article source and public page, with its role and revision.
- [current article guide](https://blitzmetrics.com/definitive-article-guide/), [Article Guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/) and the current Task Library Standard linked from [Task Library](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/).
- The completed topic check, available media/source evidence and desktop/mobile browser access.

## Steps

1. Read the current maintained standards and record their revisions. This task keeps its legacy “8-step” identifier for existing links, but the checklist follows today’s requirements; do not force an old eight-step scheme onto every page.
2. Confirm page role. For a task recipe, check its trigger/starting state, real inputs and prerequisite tasks, ordered method, measurable output/pass criteria and next owner. Hubs, references, comparisons and stories require clear scope and truthful links, not a fabricated task recipe.
3. Check the opening for plain fifth-grade context: who benefits, why the task matters and what to do first. Explain the first use of jargon with an owned concept link. Inspect a useful real image or diagram in the first desktop and mobile screen; source markup alone does not prove it is visible.
4. For a recipe, inspect its lower Content Factory context: the four stages Produce, Process, Post and Promote; the task’s truthful placement; actual prerequisites and next task; and the link from run notes back into method improvements. Do not invent prerequisites from generic catalog neighbors.
5. Where a table of contents exists, check each link against the actual section ID and order. Test internal, external and action links, noting authentication and inaccessible targets honestly. Where structured data is required or present, check its type and visible facts against the page rather than inventing unsupported schema values.
6. Read examples for real supporting evidence or a clear fictional-teaching label. A fictional example can teach the method but does not satisfy a real execution-proof gap. Check useful related help/service handoffs without inserting an irrelevant sales call to action.
7. Record each defect with location, evidence and exact correction. Preserve the existing page type, builder data, media and authoritative source when preparing repairs. Verify saved source and public rendering separately after an authorized change; hand audit findings to the current register.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

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

- [ ] Current role-appropriate requirements are checked; no legacy step count substitutes for them.
- [ ] Opening and meaningful lead visual pass actual desktop/mobile review, or that check is explicitly still pending.
- [ ] Navigation, schema where applicable, examples and task context have evidence; defects have exact corrections and owners.

## Example(s)

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

A fictional recipe has all its headings and a valid contents list, but its top image is an empty colored block on a phone. Its input list also says “get access” without naming the needed source. Record both defects. The HTML having an image tag and the contributor status saying complete do not make the document ready.

## 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.

[Check facts against current sources](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=check-information-currency-with-latest-data#task-check-information-currency-with-latest-data) receives the page for the next audit check; [Record the audit result](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=update-status-table-in-definitive-article-guide#task-update-status-table-in-definitive-article-guide) receives the final combined findings after all four checks.

## 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=verify-structural-completeness-against-8-step-framework#task-verify-structural-completeness-against-8-step-framework)
- [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 `complete`. It is preserved, not promoted by this rewrite. That label alone does not verify document readiness, a client outcome, access or an executed task.

The legacy task identifier remains stable. Actual desktop/mobile review, link/schema results and a named semantic reviewer are required before claiming this structural check passed. 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.