Template:Admin Page Status/doc

Welcome to the MoA–TSG Lab. The wiki is the bench. The work is Metrology of the Abstract. Adopt the tools or leave them on the rack — either way, the need doesn't wait.

• Lab Note: A redlink is not a failure. It identifies Calibration Debt—work waiting to be measured, mapped, and calibrated.

CYCLE Calibration position Status — Active Development This page is a conceptual instrument under Permanent Beta. It declares a real calibration position, not a finished product waiting to ship. Checking continues; an edit is only required when evidence demands it. Stage: Seed to Fruit. Feedback welcome — especially clarity, failure modes, and calibration gaps. Use discussion or Contribute.

Sovereign-Games-OG-Image.jpg

Meta

Admin Page Status/doc

Type	Meta & Framework
Functional Layer
Application Layer	Framework Infrastructure
Category	Meta & Framework
Version	0.5
Maturity	Development
Last Calibration	2026-07-13
Status	Permanent Beta
Description	Official reference and field guide for the {{Admin Page Status}} template — controlled vocabularies, judgment guidance, and workflow instructions for internal calibration tracking.

Menu

---

Core Principles

• Reality gets final vote
• See the Game. Refuse the Game. Build Better.
• Permanent Beta

Navigation

• Full Game Library
• Core Diagnostic
• How to Use These Games

Related

• One-Way Nature of the Sovereign Games
• Hidden Mastery
• The Royal Cubit Civilization (Strategy)

Template:Admin Page Status/doc

This page is the single canonical reference for the {{Admin Page Status}} template — it defines the controlled vocabulary for every field, explains the reasoning behind each one, and walks through how to actually perform a review. It is intended for admins and maintainers only.

This page supersedes and merges the former "Admin Page Status Field Standards" page — that content now lives here so there is one source of truth, not two documents that can drift apart.

Note on `instrument_grade` values specifically: this page documents how the field is used and judged, but Versioning is the canonical source for the five-value scale itself (Experimental, Development, Confirmed, Field Validated, Reference Standard Candidate). If this page and Versioning ever appear to disagree on the list of values, Versioning is correct — this page should be updated to match, not the reverse.

Review Philosophy

Reviewers should assume the page is attempting to contribute something useful. The purpose of calibration is not to "catch errors" but to improve the accuracy, usefulness, and reliability of the conceptual instrument. A review that finds nothing to improve is not a wasted review — it is confirmation, and confirmation is itself valuable data. A review that finds several things to improve is not a criticism of the author — it is the system doing what it was built to do.

How This Page Fits the Larger System

This template does not stand alone. It is one part of a small, interlocking quality system spanning several pages:

• Template:GameModule/doc — describes what the instrument is.
• Admin Page Status (this template) — tracks the inspection.
• Calibration Reports (on each page's Talk page) — record findings from each review pass.
• /Calibration Log subpages — track current state and version history.
• Versioning — canonical source for both the versioning scheme and the `instrument_grade` scale.
• Reference Standards in Abstract Systems — defines terminology and standing.
• Conceptual Instruments — defines what a page is, in metrological terms.

Together these function as a quality management system for the wiki's own content, not just documentation about how one template works.

How to Use This Page

When reviewing a page, work through each field in the Field-by-Field Guide below, in order. For select-type fields, only use the listed controlled-vocabulary options — do not invent new values, as this breaks the semantic queries and dashboards that depend on consistent values. If a field genuinely doesn't apply to a given page, use "Not applicable" or "Not checked" rather than leaving it blank where those options exist; a blank field and a deliberately-assessed "not applicable" mean different things to anyone reviewing the dashboard later.

Note on Calibration Cycle vs. Version: these are not the same number and should not be conflated. Version (tracked via Versioning) reflects changes to the page's actual content. Calibration Cycle reflects how many times the page has been reviewed — a page can be reviewed multiple times with no content change (confirmed as still accurate), or have its version bumped several times between reviews. The Talk page's Calibration Reports log serves as the cycle record; there is no separate cycle-count field at this time.

Description

This template tracks the maintenance and calibration status of pages within The Sovereign Games project. It stores structured data using both Semantic MediaWiki and Cargo.

Note on visibility: This template intentionally has no visible display box. An earlier version attempted to gate a visible status box behind an admin-only permission check (Module:IsAdmin), but that approach proved unreliable — the check could fail depending on parse context, occasionally showing the box to logged-out users or erroring outright. Rather than maintain a fragile permission gate, all data is stored silently and reviewed via Special:Browse (SMW) or the Cargo table browser instead. This is more convenient in practice — both are one click away in the page toolbar and require no custom permission logic to stay correct.

Usage

<!-- '''Note:''' There is no `cited_by` field. Inbound dependencies are generated automatically by query, not entered manually. -->
{{Admin Page Status
<!-- === CORE STATUS === -->
| categorization = 
<!-- options: Done, Needs review, Not started -->
| calibration_review = 
<!-- options: Self-Assessment, Confirmed Rating -->
| instrument_grade = 
<!-- options: Experimental, Development, Confirmed, Field Validated, Reference Standard Candidate -->
| validation = 
<!-- options: Low, Moderate, High -->
| calibration_rationale = 
<!-- 1-2 sentences explaining validation and instrument_grade -->
| review_confidence = 
<!-- options: High, Moderate, Low -->
| review_date = 
<!-- CRITICAL WARNING: SAME RULE AS Last Calibration above. This is NOT a live template. It is set ONLY when a real Calibration Report is filed — never during pre-cal discussion, exploration, or a check that finds nothing wrong. See Calibration Failure Log. -->
| reviewed_by = 
<!-- HIDDEN GUIDE: is this a minor edit or an actual calibration? Test: does the change affect a field rating (instrument_grade, validation, drift_report_status) or a claim's actual content/structure? If yes — real calibration, review_date updates, full report required. If pure formatting/typo/link fix with zero rating effect — minor, edit summary only, review_date stays untouched. -->
| priority = 
<!-- options: Core, Supporting, Peripheral. Main/master pages default toward Core if they are a hub for other pages. -->
| review_threshold = 
<!-- Days before overdue, default 90. Core pages typically use 30-60. -->
| has_backlinks = 
<!-- options: Yes, No, Not checked (default) -->
| outbound_links_valid = 
<!-- options: Yes, Has red links, No, Not checked -->
| in_outline = 
<!-- options: Yes, No -->
| in_category_outline = 
<!-- options: Yes, No -->
| templates_complete = 
<!-- options: Done, Needs review, Not started -->
| formatting_standard = 
<!-- options: Meets standard, Needs work, Not checked -->
| symmetry_check = 
<!-- options: Applied, Not applicable, Needs work -->
| self_report_flagged = 
<!-- options: Yes, No, Not applicable -->
| terminology_consistent = 
<!-- options: Yes, Needs work, Not checked -->
| standing_check = 
<!-- options: Confirmed by other party, Self-assessed only -->
| drift_report_status = 
<!-- options (multiple allowed, semicolon-separated): Breadcrumb-Open, Nonconformance-Open, Nonconformance-Open-With-Dependencies, Disputed, None open. "None open" is valid ONLY alone. -->
| depends_on = 
<!-- Semi-colon separated list of pages this page genuinely relies on — NOT universal infrastructure (Admin Page Status, GameModule), NOT casual mentions. See Calibration Dependencies: Standards and Process. -->
}}

Note: There is no `cited_by` field. Inbound dependencies (which pages cite this one) are generated automatically by query, not entered manually — see the `depends_on` entry below.

Quick-Reference Parameter Tables

Core Status

Field	Type	Options
categorization	select	Done, Needs review, Not started
calibration_review	select	Self-Assessment, Confirmed Rating
instrument_grade	select	Experimental, Development, Confirmed, Field Validated, Reference Standard Candidate (canonical definitions: Versioning)
validation	select	Low, Moderate, High
calibration_rationale	text	One or two sentences explaining the validation / instrument_grade values
review_confidence	select	High, Moderate, Low

Documentation vs. theory — a note on what Low/Experimental means: Some pages describe an observed, pre-existing pattern rather than proposing a new theory or mechanism. On these pages, Low or Experimental `validation` should be read as uncertainty about whether the current wording accurately describes the real pattern — not uncertainty about whether the underlying pattern exists. The goal on such pages is fidelity of description, not construction of a hypothesis. State explicitly on the page itself which framing applies (documentation of an existing pattern vs. a proposed/theoretical claim), so a future reviewer doesn't have to guess which standard the rating is being judged against.

Review Metadata

Field	Type	Description
review_date	date	Last review date, YYYY-MM-DD
reviewed_by	text	Username of reviewer

Cycle & Priority

Field	Type	Description
priority	select	Core, Supporting, Peripheral
review_threshold	number	Days before overdue (default: 90)

Structural / Navigational (Mechanical Review)

Field	Type	Options
has_backlinks	select	Yes, No, Not checked
outbound_links_valid	select	Yes, Has red links, No, Not checked
in_outline	select	Yes, No
in_category_outline	select	Yes, No

Templates & Formatting (Mechanical Review)

Field	Type	Options
templates_complete	select	Done, Needs review, Not started
formatting_standard	select	Meets standard, Needs work, Not checked

Content Integrity (Conceptual Review)

Field	Type	Options
symmetry_check	select	Applied, Not applicable, Needs work
self_report_flagged	select	Yes, No, Not applicable
terminology_consistent	select	Yes, Needs work, Not checked

Process / Dependency

Field	Type	Options / Description
standing_check	select	Confirmed by other party, Self-assessed only
drift_report_status	multi-select (list)	`Breadcrumb-Open`, `Nonconformance-Open`, `Nonconformance-Open-With-Dependencies`, `Resolved-Unverified`, `Disputed`, `None open`. Multiple values allowed, semicolon-separated. `None open` valid ONLY alone — cannot combine with any other value. See Nonconformance Reporting Procedure and Breadcrumb Tracking.
depends_on	multi-select (list)	Semi-colon separated list of pages this page genuinely relies on. NOT universal infrastructure, NOT casual mentions. See Calibration Dependencies: Standards and Process.

Field-by-Field Guide

Core Status

categorization

What it measures: Whether the page has been placed into the correct category structure for its type and content.

• Done — page sits in the category (or categories) that correctly reflect its content and type.
• Needs review — categorized, but possibly wrong, outdated, or incomplete.
• Not started — no meaningful categorization yet.

calibration_review

What it measures: Whether this page has been reviewed only by its own author, or independently confirmed by someone else.

• Self-Assessment — the author rated the page themselves. Legitimate first state, not a failure — but should not carry the same authority as a Confirmed Rating.
• Confirmed Rating — a second party, not the primary author, reviewed and confirmed, adjusted, or disputed the ratings.

Why this field exists: A standard rated only by its own author carries the same conflict of interest as any self-graded work. This field makes that distinction visible rather than hiding it.

instrument_grade

What it measures: Current calibration maturity — how trustworthy this page is as a conceptual instrument right now. The canonical definitions of the five values live on Versioning, not here — this section explains how to judge and apply them, not their authoritative definition.

• Experimental — very early, high uncertainty, expect frequent change.
• Development — actively being refined, moderate stability.
• Confirmed — self-assessed and reviewed by at least one other calibrator (ties to `calibration_review = Confirmed Rating`, but is a distinct, higher bar — see note below).
• Field Validated — tested in real-world use with supporting evidence, not just reviewed on paper.
• Reference Standard Candidate — high confidence, suitable for other pages to build on or cite as load-bearing.

Note on overlap with `calibration_review`: these are related but not identical. `calibration_review` is binary — has anyone besides the author looked at this at all. `instrument_grade` is a five-step maturity ladder. A page can have `calibration_review = Confirmed Rating` and still sit at `instrument_grade = Development` if the confirming review found real gaps still open.

validation

What it measures: How much real-world testing or evidence stands behind the page's claims, independent of how well-reasoned it sounds.

• Low — reasoned from first principles or a single case; not yet tested against multiple real situations.
• Moderate — applied and checked in a handful of real cases.
• High — applied and confirmed across many independent cases, ideally including cases the author didn't build the page around.

Common mistake: Confusing internal coherence with validation. A page can be perfectly logical and still Low validation if untested against reality.

calibration_rationale

What it measures: The reasoning behind the `validation` and `instrument_grade` values — not a general summary of the page, specifically the "why" behind those two ratings. One or two sentences is sufficient.

review_confidence

What it measures: The reviewer's own confidence in the assessment they just performed — not the page's quality, and not the same thing as `validation`.

• High — reviewer is confident the ratings given are accurate.
• Moderate — reviewer has some uncertainty, possibly due to unfamiliarity with the topic or limited time spent.
• Low — reviewer is genuinely unsure and flags this rating as needing a second look sooner than the normal cycle.

Review Metadata

review_date

Date of the most recent substantive review — not page creation, not a typo fix. Drives the automatic Cycle Status calculation.

reviewed_by

Who performed the review reflected in `review_date`. If `calibration_review = Confirmed Rating`, this should be the confirming party, not the original author.

Cycle & Priority

priority

What it measures: How central this page is to the framework — sorts the maintenance dashboard so important stale pages surface first.

• Core — foundational; other pages depend on it (e.g. Reality Override Game, Reference Standards).
• Supporting — applies or extends core concepts but isn't itself load-bearing.
• Peripheral — standalone/illustrative; little else affected if it goes stale.

review_threshold

Days before Overdue (default 90). Core pages may warrant 30–60 days; Peripheral pages can reasonably use 180. Cycle Status (Current/Due Soon/Overdue) is computed automatically via Module:CalibrationCycle — not set directly.

Mechanical Review Fields

has_backlinks

Whether other pages actually link to this page. Check via "What links here." Also see Special:LonelyPages for a wiki-wide automated version of this check.

outbound_links_valid

Whether this page's own links point to pages that exist. Also see Special:WantedPages for a wiki-wide automated version of this check.

in_outline

Whether this page is included in its own logical outline/TOC structure so a reader following the intended path would encounter it.

in_category_outline

Whether this page is linked from its relevant category page(s) — distinct from `categorization`, which checks whether the page has a category.

templates_complete

Whether expected supporting templates (GameModule infobox, hidden Resource block, Development Notice, etc.) are present and filled in.

formatting_standard

Whether structure and formatting match house style for the page type.

Conceptual Review Fields

symmetry_check

For any page comparing or evaluating two or more systems/positions: was diagnostic inversion actually applied with matched rigor on all sides?

• Applied — comparable depth (evidence, internal critics, structured measurands) used on every side.
• Not applicable — page doesn't compare competing positions.
• Needs work — comparison exists, but one side received noticeably thinner treatment.

self_report_flagged

Whether the page makes a claim resting only on self-report/introspection with no external verification, and whether that limitation is disclosed.

• Yes — such a claim exists, and it's clearly disclosed.
• No — either no such claim, OR one exists and is NOT yet disclosed (treat as a flag to fix, not as "fine").
• Not applicable — no claims of this type.

terminology_consistent

Whether terms/names/links match spelling and capitalization used consistently elsewhere in the framework.

Process / Dependency

standing_check

Whether ratings on this page have been confirmed by someone other than the original author, per Reference Standards in Abstract Systems.

drift_report_status

Whether a Drift Report exists against this page, and whether it's unresolved (Open) or actively contested (Disputed).

depends_on

Semi-colon separated list of pages this page's claims rely on. If one is substantively revised, this page may need a second look. Powers the dependency-ripple view.

Note on inbound dependencies ("who cites this page"): not a manual field — generated automatically via query:

{{#ask: [[Has dependency::{{PAGENAME}}]] }}

Worked Example: A Full Review Pass

1. Read the page fully. Note anything that looks unsupported, one-sided, or stale before touching any field.

2. Mechanical Review first (fast, objective): `has_backlinks`, `outbound_links_valid`, `in_outline`, `in_category_outline`, `templates_complete`, `formatting_standard`. Check and record — no deep judgment needed.

3. Conceptual Review second (slower, requires judgment): Does the page compare positions? Run `symmetry_check` seriously — was the weaker side actually built out, or just gestured at? Does it lean on self-report anywhere? Flag it.

4. Set `validation` and `instrument_grade` honestly, and write `calibration_rationale`. Resist the pull to round up because the page reads well — internal coherence is not validation. One sentence of rationale is enough.

5. Set `review_confidence` honestly. If you're unsure whether your own assessment is right, say so — that's useful information for the next reviewer, not a weakness in this one.

6. If this is a Confirmed Rating (not self-assessment), record who is reviewing and confirm you are not the original author. Set `standing_check` accordingly.

7. Set `review_date` to today, `reviewed_by` to yourself, and set `priority`/`review_threshold` if not already set.

8. Check for canonical-authority conflicts. If this page states it is "the canonical source" for any concept, verify no other page makes the same claim — see Calibration Dependencies: Standards and Process's "Claiming Canonical Authority" section.

9. Post a Calibration Report on the page's Talk page documenting what changed and why (see [[Reality Override Game#Partial Update as Camouflage]] — record what specifically moved, not just that "it was reviewed").

10. Update the `/Calibration Log` subpage with the new version and current state summary.

---

Common Mistakes

• Marking `calibration_review = Confirmed Rating` without an actual second reviewer. This is the single most damaging mistake possible in this system — it makes a self-assessed page look independently verified. If in doubt, leave it at Self-Assessment.
• Rounding `instrument_grade` up because the writing is polished. Polish is not validation. A beautifully written page can still be Experimental.
• Treating `symmetry_check = Applied` as a formality. If you can't point to specific evidence that the weaker side got comparable treatment, it hasn't been applied — mark "Needs work."
• Leaving fields blank instead of using "Not checked" / "Not applicable." Blank and "deliberately assessed as N/A" mean different things to the next reviewer.
• Editing an old Calibration Report instead of adding a new one. The Talk page log is append-only — corrections get logged as new entries, not silent edits to old ones.
• Manually filling in a `cited_by` value. This field doesn't exist in the current template. Inbound dependencies are generated by query — see the `depends_on` field guide above.
• Leaving `calibration_rationale` blank. A rating without a reason is not traceable — see Reference Standards in Abstract Systems on why traceability matters.
• Inventing hybrid `instrument_grade` values. Pick the single closest option from the controlled list; put nuance in `calibration_rationale`, not in the field itself.
• Declaring a page "the canonical source" for a concept without checking whether another page already claims it. This creates a direct, confusing contradiction — see Versioning's 2026-07-13 Calibration Report for a worked example of this exact mistake being found and corrected.

---

Notes

• This template stores no visible content — see the "Note on visibility" above. Review status via Special:Browse (SMW) or the Cargo table browser.
• All values are stored as both Semantic MediaWiki properties and Cargo table fields, for querying and reporting.
• Versioning is the canonical source for `instrument_grade` values — this page explains how to apply and judge them, but does not itself define the authoritative list. If you see a conflicting list anywhere, correct it to match Versioning.

Calibration Dependencies

• Versioning
• Reference Standards in Abstract Systems
• Reality Override Game
• Module:CalibrationCycle

Note: This section was corrected on 2026-07-13 to remove a conflicting canonical-authority claim over `instrument_grade` — see the Talk page Calibration Report for the full finding.

See Also

• Module:CalibrationCycle
• Template:Admin Page Status
• Versioning
• Reference Standards in Abstract Systems
• Reality Override Game
• Conceptual Instruments

See the Game. Refuse the Game. Build Better.

This page is in Permanent Beta and will be refined as we gain more experience with calibration workflows.

Page Reference

Title	Template:Admin Page Status/doc
URL	https://www.thesovereigngames.com/wiki/Template:Admin_Page_Status/doc
Description	Canonical reference and field guide for the Admin Page Status template — controlled vocabularies, judgment guidance, and workflow instructions for internal calibration tracking. Versioning is the canonical source for instrument_grade values.
Category	Meta & Framework