Corpus / Work and review
A result should
earn its trust.
A maker produces a candidate. A reviewer examines that candidate against what was asked. If the work changes, the next review needs to examine the changed result.
A working scene / 02
The candidate on the bench.
What, exactly, did the review inspect?
01 / Candidate A
The maker puts a candidate on the bench.
The requirement says what would count as done. The code folio and drawing make one candidate inspectable. The maker can present the work and its evidence, but cannot certify it independently.
02 / Amendment
Review stays with the candidate it inspected.
The review receipt is pinned to A. An amendment note identifies a change to make. Evidence and the review concern A as delivered; they do not automatically certify a later version.
03 / Candidate B
A new candidate calls for a fresh review.
B has a material change in the drawing: the broken feed now has a retaining bridge and guide. A and its earlier review remain visible; B receives its own review. This shows candidate-specific review without implying an actual verdict or outcome.
The product idea
Keep the judgment attached.
A useful record connects a judgment to the work actually inspected. It helps a later reader distinguish an earlier result from a revision and an open question from a resolved one.
Read the case study ↗A fictional demonstration
Follow an example.
The illustrated workbench shows an invented candidate and its review, then changes the scene to show an amendment. Live operation records and the working archive stay private.
Open the fictional demonstration ↗