How these pages are written and checked

Some reference pages on The Garnet Wiki were rewritten in October 2026. They replaced templated versions whose text was largely shared with other pages in the same section and was not specific to its own title. This page describes exactly how the replacements are produced and what is checked before anything is published, because you should be able to judge the method rather than take the result on trust.

How a page is drafted

A language model running on our own hardware drafts the body text. No third-party service sees the request. The draft is then reviewed by a second, separate model and by a set of deterministic checks described below. A person reads a sample from every batch by hand; that sampling is what caught the two classes of error listed at the end of this page, and the automated checks did not.

What is checked before publication

A page is published only if it clears all of the following. A page that fails any of them is held back and rewritten, not published with a caveat.

• It must be about its own title. The reviewer model scores whether the text could have been written for a different title and the page is rejected below a threshold. This is the specific failure the rewrite exists to fix.
• It must not repeat its neighbours. Every draft is compared against the other pages in its section by overlapping word sequences, and rejected above 30% similarity.
• No invented figures. Percentages, survey results, "studies show" and similar sourcing claims are rejected outright. We do not publish a statistic we cannot source.
• No invented first-hand data. Phrases claiming our own measurements, testing or production experience are rejected. We have not run the systems these pages describe.
• No invented tooling. Every command, binary and flag shown is checked against a list of software we have verified exists, and any unfamiliar name is checked individually before the page can ship. A plausible command that does not exist is worse than no command, because a reader will type it.
• No invented product behaviour. A page that describes how a specific commercial product works internally is held back, because we cannot verify those claims. Where a pattern is general, it is described generally rather than attributed to a vendor.
• It must be substantive. Short pages and pages that are mostly code with no explanation are rejected.

What we got wrong

Two classes of error reached published pages before the checks above existed, and both were found by a person reading pages rather than by any automated check:

• Pages invented command-line tools for topics that span many products with no common tooling. Those pages were withdrawn and the tool check above was built in response.
• One page claimed its figures were based on our own production usage. They were not. It was withdrawn the same day and the sourcing check above was built in response.

Pages still held back for either reason are not published in any form while they wait to be rewritten.

Corrections

If anything on this site is wrong, tell us at [email protected] and we will correct it or withdraw the page. Corrections are the reason the contact address is on every page.