# Research and editorial review record The wiki uses two kinds of review: primary-source research for its legal conclusions, and editorial comparison for how those conclusions are explained. They have different evidential roles. ## Legal research across local projects The 3 November 2026 discovery pass screened 3,193 canonical text files across 52 local project folders, identifying 46 wiki roots and 26 prioritised leads. Selected chapters and source records received deeper review. Screening was not a semantic review of every paragraph. The strongest leads distinguished an enabling law from an applicable notice, contractual adoption, actual service access and operational practice. They also identified the pathology timetable conflict, the difference between GP Connect enablement and disclosure permission, and the limits of portal proxy roles. Published legal conclusions were then checked against primary authorities and registered in this wiki. The resulting [requirements catalogue](https://uk-digital-healthcare-legal-requirements.pages.dev/digital-requirements/index.md), [worked examples](https://uk-digital-healthcare-legal-requirements.pages.dev/decision-workflow/index.md) and [capacity map](https://uk-digital-healthcare-legal-requirements.pages.dev/examples/capacity-and-representation/index.md) retain those legal distinctions. Local summaries and graph connections did not acquire independent legal authority. The detailed local discovery inventory remains a private maintainer artifact. ## Editorial review of the whole wiki The next pass reviewed all 38 maintained Human Wiki pages and 15 portable concepts at the pre-review baseline. It checked the homepage answer, page purpose, increasing detail, terminology, worked sequences, link labels, evidence placement and public-facing scope. Six other local wiki/Standard implementations supplied comparison evidence. The useful precedents were consistent: a substantive short answer before navigation; a compact organising comparison; a bounded worked exchange; and a separate exact-reference/evidence layer. A layered primary-care sharing wiki, a healthcare data-management explanation and a care-platform overview supplied the clearest examples. A dense architecture wiki helped with country/service drill-down but showed why a “short answer” can become too long. These are editorial precedents, not healthcare legal authorities. The applied reading journey is **answer → comparison → worked example → national/legal detail → exact requirement → evidence**. Boards and senior decision-makers lead; specialist detail follows, with a glossary supporting wider readers. Every deeper page should add information, not repeat the homepage caveats. ## What the review preserves The rewrite preserves registered source identities and legal findings. Review checks retain statutory versus contractual force, national/provider limits, exact timing, claim/extraction/request triggers, currentness and uncertainty. Examples distinguish illustrative assumptions from required actions. The full catalogue, source register and evidence matrix remain reference endpoints. Historical logs preserve earlier scope decisions. Dated audit, source-retention checks and comparator provenance are retained in the private source repository. A reusable, subject-neutral editorial pattern is being prepared for a Standard pull request; it is not an adopted Standard requirement or a consumer pin change. [Home answer](https://uk-digital-healthcare-legal-requirements.pages.dev/index.md) · [How the wiki is organised](https://uk-digital-healthcare-legal-requirements.pages.dev/architecture/index.md) · [Source register](https://uk-digital-healthcare-legal-requirements.pages.dev/sources/index.md) · [Evidence matrix](https://uk-digital-healthcare-legal-requirements.pages.dev/evidence-matrix/index.md) · [Research log](https://uk-digital-healthcare-legal-requirements.pages.dev/log/index.md)