> 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/assurance/guidance-reviews.md).

# Guidance Reviews

**Open this area:** In the CORTEX menu, select **Assurance & governance → UK source register**.

Each retained baseline or revision names its publisher for guidance review; retain exact guide versions, evidence and unresolved coverage.

**Who uses this:** Administrator, Reviewer.\
**Open in CORTEX:** `/governance/sources`.\
**In-app guide:** `/help?topic=guidance-reviews`.

**Expected result:** A changed source or profile remains visible until its own guidance review is recorded, without changing earlier decisions.

## Before you start

* Have corpus read access and the target's handling scope; recording a receipt additionally requires corpus manage authority.
* Prepare the exact guide identifiers and content revisions or commit, verified change evidence, outstanding coverage and next action.

## What to do

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Open named review work

In a source's impact review or profile history, open **Review guidance affected by revisions**.

Each baseline/change is derived from its retained history and names the recorded publisher responsible for arranging review. No background task or notification is needed to create this work.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Compare the exact revision

Inspect current source rights, profile coverage, jurisdiction and terminology. Older guidance stays available for older decisions.

Select the revision you actually reviewed; a later edition needs its own review even if an earlier one was recorded.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Update and verify guidance

Have the guidance editor make the controlled help change through normal code review. Verify it for the stated scope.

Record guide identifiers, exact content revision/commit, the impact assessment and actual update or reasoned no-change evidence.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Disclose gaps

Record restricted or unsupplied sources, unreviewed baselines, licensing limits and the next action.

If no gap remains within the stated scope, explain that conclusion. The application never turns a review receipt into a full compliance claim.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Retain the receipt

Record the review with a reason. Your identity, time, target hash and observed current target are retained.

Corrections append another receipt. A source/profile change during review requires **Refresh and compare**, followed by explicit revision selection; other draft fields remain for correction.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Check the result

* Did I inspect the original and current editions?
* Are guide identifiers and content revisions exact?
* Have I disclosed unresolved coverage and the next action?
* Does a newer revision still need review?

## If you get stuck

<details>

<summary>Why did another review appear?</summary>

The source or profile has another retained revision. Each version/hash gets its own named work; an earlier receipt cannot close the new one.

Existing baselines also need an initial guidance review.

</details>

<details>

<summary>What if saving was interrupted?</summary>

Retry the unchanged request, or refresh and inspect retained receipts before adding another review.

Stable operation identifiers prevent duplicate acceptance of the same request. A different request needs deliberate revision selection after comparison.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why does the draft clear on access loss?</summary>

Current corpus or handling authority no longer permits the record. Sensitive evidence is removed.

Ask the responsible manager before reopening it; ordinary validation and conflict failures retain text.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Does Review recorded mean compliant?</summary>

No. Inspect the receipt's scope and gaps plus the separate current source/profile reviews.

Restricted and unsupplied source bodies remain unresolved until actually supplied and authorised.

</details>

## Responsibility and limits

* The publisher arranges the review; a currently authorised corpus manager records the actual evidence. Named responsibility does not grant permissions.
* This saves a review receipt, not help content. It neither approves a profile nor grants reuse rights, and sends no message to the named person.

**Reference and scope:** Reviewed local source/profile histories and their exact editions. Guidance review is separate from source-body rights, profile approval, professional qualification and legal authority.

**Related workflows:** [Read guidance for the exact retained UK profile](broken://pages/c5895cc2858a609d80981bd8bbaa2d3b1f519a29); [Preserve an exact revision and manage holds](broken://pages/0185ca5a2331760fb4c59665b8dde7f4d80e0fc6); [Practise a role with synthetic examples](file:///7397340/getting-started/guided-learning.md).