> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/workflow-guides/analyse/synapse-review.md).

# Synapse Review

**Open this area:** In the CORTEX menu, select **Sources & evidence → Relationship review**.

Keep candidate identities separate, compare reporting origins, and retain reversible human decisions.

**Who uses this:** Analyst, Reviewer\
**Open in CORTEX:** `/synapse/relationships`\
**In-app guide:** `/help?topic=synapse-review`

**Expected result:** An exact relationship revision retains its pilot criteria, evidence, scoped identity proposal, and review history.

## Before you start

* Have Synapse and Memory read access and the relevant write/review grant. Reporting-origin comparison also needs Source read access.
* Use a prioritised pilot with an accountable owner, measurable need, explicit false-merge tolerance, and exact retained evidence. A typed reference does not itself prove owner approval.

## What to do

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

## Compare the records

The relationship list pager appears only beyond one visible page and shows the exact authorised range; edited filters apply when **Find relationships** is selected, while **Previous** and **Next** use the last submitted search.

The relationship prerequisite panel requires two distinct active cited entities and links to entity creation when another is needed.

Use **Endpoints**, **Claim**, **Evidence**, and **Review**, and save to retain a draft. Required fields and colored step states explain what blocks **Continue**.

Similar names alone do not establish identity; retain both supporting and contradictory exact evidence.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Bound the proposal

Select **Propose that these records describe the same entity**.

Record the pilot/owner reference, measurable use, false-merge acceptance, and time/alias scope.

The server pins current endpoint versions; both records remain separate.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Inspect reporting origins

Open **Compare reporting origins** on relationship detail.

Shared source origins, unknown provenance, and circular reporting are explicit. Citation/report totals are not independent-source counts.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Record a decision

The relationship list names **Draft**, **Proposed for review**, **Accepted decision**, and **Rejected decision** states and explains their immediate meaning.

Propose the draft for another authorised reviewer. The reviewer inspects exact evidence and records a reasoned acceptance or rejection.

An accepted decision does not prove source truth or merge entities. Changed endpoint versions block acceptance; rejection remains available.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Correct deliberately

A correction creates a new **Draft** and removes the old acceptance from the current graph.

Earlier content, identity versions, and decisions remain retained.

Decide a **Proposed** record before correcting it.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Keep AI evaluation separate

The fixed Synapse relationship package is available only through the protected AI evaluation workflow.

It uses synthetic entities and cells to test a strict suggestion schema; it does not read operational Synapse records, offer a relationship action, or write a draft.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Check the result

* Does the pilot have actual owner approval?
* Are identity kind, language, and time scope compatible?
* Have I inspected contradictory evidence and repeated reporting?
* Does the independent review cover the current exact versions?

## If you get stuck

<details>

<summary>Why is acceptance blocked?</summary>

Use a different authorised reviewer. If either endpoint changed or retired, reject the stale proposal, correct it with the current evidence, and propose the new revision.

</details>

<details>

<summary>What happens if my draft cannot be saved?</summary>

Validation and concurrent-change errors retain your draft so you can correct it. Reload deliberately to discard it and use the latest stored version. Leaving warns about unsaved edits. Revoked access clears the retained content and draft; retry only after your current access has been restored.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why can the origin comparison be unavailable?</summary>

Source access may be absent or revoked, or an upstream origin may carry restrictions outside the relationship marking. No broader lineage is returned. Ask the responsible owner to review the scope; do not lower handling to work around it.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Can the evaluation package suggest a relationship in my workspace?</summary>

No. It is synthetic, evaluation-only preparation with no operational source reader, model action, Synapse write, or entity-resolution service. A passing test does not approve a model, source set, or relationship workflow.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Can I reverse a mistaken identity decision?</summary>

Correct the accepted relationship with a reason. It becomes **Draft** immediately; the current graph no longer presents that accepted edge, while the previous decision and separate entities remain intact.

</details>

## Responsibility and limits

* This workflow records reviewed identity equivalence; it does not physically merge entities, calculate identity scores, or turn repeated reports into independent corroboration.
* The evaluation validator proves bounded shape, exact entity and citation identifiers, and source association. A human reviewer must decide semantic grounding and reporting independence.
* An accountable owner, protected evaluation run, and exact processing/AI-use decision remain required under #6919. NERVE contract resolution under #6910 and the F30 customer gates remain separate prerequisites for any integration.
* Existing handling, access, and retention controls apply to the retained relationship. No external index or graph interchange is enabled without measured need and a defined approved integration.

**Reference and scope:** F30 stories 6405–6409: prioritised, human-reviewed resolution and reporting-origin comparison. Customer-specific integration and pilot acceptance require actual owner evidence.

**Related workflows:** [Record cited entities and challenge relationships](broken://pages/0052d222b6bbe9bca3b9b5abb372bd0a965b393a); [Review reporting origins, independence and corrections](broken://pages/519a6dd9104e5b592aab17a02265642b8ecd221a); [Find evidence and select exact retained passages](broken://pages/e6eab51e146c4db1e002b720557a5faea932e41c).