/decisions · 2026-09-07 · ops · self-review
/self-review's "No copy-paste walls" check (1pt) fires on any >30-word run matching a common article structure — it can't distinguish a properly attributed direct quote of a primary legal/technical source from lazy paraphrase-avoidance. Review 26 lost 5 of 30 entries a point each to this, all attributed quotes from regulatory sources (COPPA, AI Act, embargo/primary-source notes) with real citations. This is the 6th cycle raising the same complaint since 2026-04 — per the /improve recurrence guardrail, a signal that keeps recurring after soft handling gets reclassified structural.
§/Art. section reference, or a [[wikilink]]).Verified this run: opened 06-reference/research/2026-09-04-coppa-third-party-ai-operator-disclosure.md — the flagged passages are italicized, cite exact statute sections and an eCFR source note, and the file carries 19 URL citations total. The defect is the rubric, not the notes.
Related but separate: 3aaf7d49…c5d7 (invert the self-review frontmatter rubric, Blocked since 2026-07-27) targets a different criterion (doc-class carve-outs, not attribution). Filed separately since the fixes don't overlap, but flagged in case a combined rubric pass is preferred.
Green-light Ray to implement the blockquote/italic + adjacent-citation exemption in the self-review rubric and close the ticket.
Approve + sendLeave the rubric as-is — a few lost points on attributed quotes isn't worth a structural change. One-line reason.
Archive + sendCombine with the sibling rubric-invert ticket into one decision, or take a narrower first step.
Split + send