The review and fact-check workflow
A card reaches the playable library only after its central claim and player experience have been reviewed together. The process records what is known, what is uncertain, and what needs another look without promising that every source agrees.
Define the claim
Review starts with a narrow claim that can fit in a card answer. Broad stories are split into the part the sources support and the part that would require speculation.
The editor records the answer axis and the boundaries of the claim. This prevents a colourful anecdote from quietly becoming the headline fact when only a smaller statement is well supported.
Check suitable evidence
Sources are selected for the subject. A stable fact may have one authoritative source; a contested or interpretive claim is checked against more than one independent source when possible.
The review keeps the source use proportional to the claim. It does not turn a disputed origin into a certain invention date, and it preserves qualifiers such as usually, may, or evidence suggests when they matter.
Write original wording
Sources are used to understand and verify the fact, never as a script for the card. Editors write the front, full answer, short answer, and directions from the approved claim.
Commercial game cards are not copied, translated, or paraphrased. If a topic cannot be expressed independently without tracking another card too closely, it is removed or replaced with a different subject.
Review all three locales
Hong Kong Traditional Chinese, Taiwan Traditional Chinese, and English are each read as a player would read them. Review includes names, numbers, units, sentence emphasis, and whether uncertainty survives the translation.
The three variants are compared by their matching concept. A translation can be concise or use a local name, but it cannot change the answer axis, difficulty intention, or what a player is asked to explain.
Run content checks
Before release, the collection is checked for missing fields, repeated concepts, duplicate fronts within a locale, invalid direction counts, mismatched ordering, and missing short editions. Shape B open topics are checked to remain tag-free.
The difficulty distribution and direction balance are measured across the collection. These are aggregate quality checks. They do not publish the true direction for an individual card or expose private answer key information to a player.
Correct and record changes
A factual correction updates the relevant card and its locale variants together. If the evidence cannot support a safe correction, the card is held back rather than padded with a confident sentence.
Released changes are summarised by date so readers can tell when the library shape, game rules, or public samples changed. The record describes completed work and does not invent a reviewer, approval, or guarantee.
Accuracy is a continuing practice
The review process makes the evidence and the player experience visible to the editors. It cannot remove every uncertainty from knowledge, so the card wording should always stay within what its sources support.