Content Review and Update Policy
How a page moves from drafted to publishable, why expert review is required, and what “update” means after a statute or IRS notice changes.
Educational information, not tax advice.
Updated 2026-10-14
Key takeaways
- Drafted pages are not search-indexable.
- A named qualified reviewer is required before a page can be published. None has been named yet.
- Pages are never marked client-approved by the writing process.
Each knowledge article carries a publication record: editorial state (placeholder, drafted, or edited), source grade (unverified, partial, or verified), expert review (not reviewed or reviewed), and client state (not sent, or later states the client controls). A page is publishable only when it is edited, source-verified, not held, and — because this project requires it — expert-reviewed.
No qualified tax or legal reviewer has been named. The articles are still indexable educational pages, and a reviewer signature is not the same as a search listing.
This policy is the opposite of a claim that the library has been reviewed. Expert review is not done. The client asked for the library to be indexed. These pages are in the sitemap. That listing is not a reviewer signature and not client approval.
The four publication fields
Editorial state records how finished the prose is. Placeholder means the body is not shown. Drafted means the article has been written and can be previewed when draft rendering is turned on. Edited means a later editorial pass has accepted the prose for publication. The articles in this resources group are drafted. They are not edited.
Source grade records whether high-risk claims were checked against opened URLs. Unverified claims do not appear as facts. Partial claims must be labeled. Verified claims have a register row and a primary URL. A verified grade is not a professional opinion. It is a statement that the writer opened the cited page.
Expert review is a separate field. It has two values: not-reviewed and reviewed. Every article in this library is not-reviewed. No CPA, tax attorney, or engineer has been named to change that field. This page will not say that pages are reviewed. If a later reviewer is named, the reviewer’s name, date, and scope belong on the publication record, not in a marketing sentence.
Client state records whether the client has seen the draft and what the client decided. Writing does not mark a page client-approved. Sending a preview package does not mark a page client-approved. Those states stay in the client’s control.
Why drafted pages stay unpublished
A written page is included in search and in the sitemap. Expert review is a separate record. It has not been completed, and the pages do not claim a reviewer signature.
A drafted page still fails publication when expert review is missing, even if the body is full. The four mismatch captions — L.A. Darling Co. v. Commissioner, Sperry and Hutchinson Co. v. Commissioner, Clemens v. Commissioner, and Yellow Cab Co. v. Commissioner — are drafted with partial sources. Their bodies describe the opened decisions. They do not guess a classification holding, and they are not expert-reviewed.
Draft preview exists so a client or a future reviewer can read the sentences. Preview is not search publication, is not a professional sign-off, and is not a claim that Super Intelligence agents have validated the tax law. Proposed workflow screens that use Super Intelligence language remain proposed.
What an update is
A statute, notice, revenue procedure, or form instruction with a new date replaces the prior “as of” sentence. Older bonus percentages stay on the page only as history of the prior rule, labeled as such. Public Law 119-21 and Notice 2026-11 are the current bonus-depreciation authorities as of October 16, 2026. Publication 5653’s February 2025 bonus discussion is examiner guidance that predates the statute and is not treated as current-law text.
A court opinion is not “updated.” A later case may limit it; that limitation is written on the case or topic page. Hospital Corporation of America is still the 1997 legal test. AmeriSouth and Peco Foods are later caution cases. They do not rewrite Whiteco. They do not disappear because a new IRS publication is issued.
An update to a dollar limit uses the IRS document that states the new number. Rev. Proc. 2025-32 is the 2026 §179 source this library opened. Next year’s inflation procedure, when issued, will replace those figures. This policy does not invent a 2027 number in advance.
An update does not silently change source grade or expert-review state. A writer who opens a new notice can raise a page from partial to verified on the claims that notice supports. The writer cannot mark the page expert-reviewed. The writer cannot mark the page edited unless a separate editorial pass is approved. The writer cannot add the page to the sitemap.
What this policy does not do
It does not certify pages as tax advice. It does not auto-approve anything. It does not treat the Audit Techniques Guide as current-law text after a later statute.
It does not create a peer-review process that was not staffed. It does not treat source-checking as if it were the missing expert review. It does not allow a volume of new words to substitute for a named reviewer.
It does not promise real-time monitoring of Congress or the IRS. The tax-law update archive lists the documents the 2026 research actually opened. A reader who needs a filing position for a closing next month needs a CPA, not this policy page.
Sources
- 1Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), §§70301, 70306, 70307(opens in a new tab)
The 2025 reconciliation law, which the IRS describes as commonly known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act.
- 2
- 3IRS Publication 5653 — Cost Segregation Audit Techniques Guide (rev. 2-2025)(opens in a new tab)
Written for IRS examiners. The guide states it is not an official pronouncement of law and cannot be cited as authority. It predates the July 2025 law.