Publication is not a review badge
Kotoba Street tracks publication, Japanese-language review, safety review, and automated validation as separate decisions. Content status controls whether a page can be routed, listed, or indexed. Review metadata answers a different question: which checks apply and whether each is required, underway, automated, or reviewed. A visible page is not automatically a human-reviewed page. The editorial policy explains the wider publication contract.
What Japanese-language review checks
Review follows the exact Japanese example and its teaching situation. It checks spelling and script, reading and romanization, literal meaning, natural English, situational function, relationship and register, politeness, and regional scope when relevant. Likely replies, repair language, and the learner’s next action are checked as part of the same teaching situation. A sentence can be grammatical in isolation and still be wrong for the stated scene.
Translation labels answer different questions
A literal meaning shows how the Japanese is built. Natural English shows how a person might express the same idea in English. Situational function explains what the line is doing in that exchange. We keep those labels separate when one smooth English gloss would hide a useful distinction.
Automated checks have a limited scope
Automated validators can find missing metadata, invalid structure, broken links, and some markup or media mismatches. They cannot certify naturalness, nuance, politeness, regional fit, safety, factual currency, or the quality of a reply. “Verified automated” means only that the documented machine checks for that scope passed; it is not human approval.
The five review states
- Not required: that review track does not apply to the item. It does not approve other tracks or the whole page.
- Required: the relevant review is still needed.
- In review: checking has started, but approval is not complete.
- Verified automated: documented automated checks passed for their limited scope; no human approval is implied.
- Reviewed: an appropriate human checked the defined scope, and the responsible reviewer and date are recorded.
These labels live in content records. They are not currently displayed as a live review badge on every lesson, Story, or glossary page, so the presence of a public page does not reveal its review state.
A material change reopens the relevant review
Changing a Japanese expression, reading, translation, likely reply, scene, or safety-sensitive claim can make an earlier review stale. We recheck the affected scope instead of carrying approval forward automatically. Approval of a plan, a general permission to continue, or an automated assessment is not review of later exact wording.
Japanese-language and safety review are separate
A natural Japanese sentence can still sit beside an outdated or unsafe factual claim. Allergy, symptom, clinic, emergency, and other safety-sensitive material therefore needs a separate safety decision. A general copy pass or automated pass cannot complete that safety review or make the item fully release-ready. The medical and emergency policy defines the practical boundary.
Corrections return to the affected gate
If an example, reading, translation, reply, or context appears wrong, send the exact URL and passage through the route on the About page. We update the authoritative source and recheck the affected language, safety, and dependent copy rather than treating a local wording fix as approval of the whole page.