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	0.2
Maturity	Developing
Last Calibration	2026-07-12
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)

Admin Page Status: Field Guide & Standards

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.

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.

Description

This template tracks the maintenance and calibration status of pages within The Sovereign Games project. It stores structured data using Semantic MediaWiki properties and is hidden on the rendered page unless viewed by an admin (see Module:IsAdmin).

Usage

{{Admin Page Status
<!-- Do Not Remove commented out Reference Options -->
<!-- === CORE STATUS === -->
<!-- options: Done, Needs review, Not started -->
| categorization = 

<!-- options: Self-Assessment, Confirmed Rating -->
| calibration_review = 

<!-- options: Experimental, Development, Confirmed, Field Validated, Reference Standard Candidate -->
| instrument_grade = 

<!-- options: Low, Moderate, High -->
| validation = 

<!-- === REVIEW METADATA === -->
<!-- Format: YYYY-MM-DD -->
| review_date = 
| reviewed_by = 

<!-- === CYCLE & PRIORITY === -->
<!-- options: Core, Supporting, Peripheral -->
| priority = 

<!-- Days before considered overdue (default: 90) -->
| review_threshold = 

<!-- === STRUCTURAL / NAVIGATIONAL === -->
<!-- options: Yes, No, Not checked -->
| has_backlinks = 

<!-- options: Yes, Has red links, Not checked -->
| outbound_links_valid = 

<!-- options: Yes, No -->
| in_outline = 

<!-- options: Yes, No -->
| in_category_outline = 

<!-- === TEMPLATES & FORMATTING === -->
<!-- options: Done, Needs review, Not started -->
| templates_complete = 

<!-- options: Meets standard, Needs work, Not checked -->
| formatting_standard = 

<!-- === CONTENT INTEGRITY === -->
<!-- options: Applied, Not applicable, Needs work -->
| symmetry_check = 

<!-- options: Yes, No, Not applicable -->
| self_report_flagged = 

<!-- options: Yes, Needs work, Not checked -->
| terminology_consistent = 

<!-- === PROCESS / DEPENDENCY === -->
<!-- options: Confirmed by other party, Self-assessed only -->
| standing_check = 

<!-- options: None open, Open, Disputed -->
| drift_report_status = 

<!-- Semi-colon separated list of pages this page depends on -->
| depends_on = 
}}

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
validation	select	Low, Moderate, High

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

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

Templates & Formatting

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

Content Integrity

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	select	None open, Open, Disputed
depends_on	text	Semi-colon separated list of pages this page depends on

---

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. This is the single canonical maturity scale for the project** — the same five values are used wherever instrument maturity is tracked. Do not introduce a competing scale on another page.

• 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.

---

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.

---

Structural / Navigational

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 & Formatting

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.

---

Content Integrity

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.

Why this field exists: the single most common failure mode found in this framework's own early work — one side gets full rigor, the other a thin, appended pass.

---

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

Walking through one complete review, start to finish, on a hypothetical page:

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

2. Check structure first (fast, mechanical): `has_backlinks`, `outbound_links_valid`, `in_outline`, `in_category_outline`, `templates_complete`, `formatting_standard`. These don't require deep judgment — check and record.

3. Check content integrity (slower, requires judgment): Does the page compare positions? If so, 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. Resist the pull to round up because the page reads well — internal coherence is not validation.

5. 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.

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

7. 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").

8. 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.

---

Notes

• This template is hidden by default and only rendered for admins via Module:IsAdmin.
• All values are stored as Semantic MediaWiki properties for querying and reporting.
• This page is the canonical source for `instrument_grade` values — if you see a different five-value (or three-value) list elsewhere in the wiki, that page is stale and should be corrected to match this one.

See Also

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

---

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	Admin Page Status: Field Guide & Standards
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.
Category	Meta & Framework