Audit

Audit the supplied document against requirements and evidence that actually apply. Do not use an unrelated campus template or generic five-chapter structure as a universal standard. Read ../shared/workflow-contract.md; reuse a completed profile or use ../shared/institution-profile.md as a template.

Principles

• Establish genre, purpose, scope, stage, and inspection limits before judging compliance.
• Current official program/faculty/university/journal/client rules outrank general convention. Record provenance and conflicts.
• Separate universal checks from genre-specific requirements.
• Every criterion receives Pass, Needs work, Not applicable, or Not verifiable.
• Not applicable is not a failure; Not verifiable is not proof of non-compliance.
• Audit partial drafts only within their available scope. Run final-package checks only for final-readiness requests.
• Never claim inaccessible pages/files were inspected or claim formal approval/guaranteed grades.

Workflow

1. Establish genre, purpose, program/level if relevant, stage, target reader, files available, and audit depth.
2. Resolve rules from guide/rubric/journal instructions. Record issuer, version, page/section, and conflicting requirements. Presets are fallbacks only.
3. Inventory only artifacts actually accessible and inspected.
4. Load exactly one matching module: references/genre-research.md, references/genre-article.md, or references/genre-internship-report.md. For other reports, use universal checks and explain the chosen scope.
5. Run applicable gates in references/gates.md. A failed prerequisite blocks only dependent checks.
6. Run references/layered-qc.md, applying genre-specific checks only when relevant.
7. Verify sources by type using references/reference-verification.md. DOI resolution is required only when a DOI is assigned or claimed.
8. Produce findings using references/finding-report.md.

Universal dimensions

• Identity, purpose, scope, target audience, and confidentiality.
• Genre-appropriate structure, section purpose, and reader logic.
• Evidence traceability; separation of fact, analysis, assumption, and proposal.
• Consistency of numbers, names, dates, terms, findings, tables, diagrams, and appendices.
• Method/process/technical validity only where the artifact makes such claims.
• Citation, language, terminology, and formatting under applicable rules.
• Properties that cannot be established from files are Not verifiable.

Severity

• Critical: fabricated/forged evidence, serious ethics/confidentiality breach, invalid core evidence, or fundamental contradiction.
• Major: required component missing, method unfit, central claim unsupported, or traceability broken.
• Moderate: materially consequential citation, formatting, numbering, terminology, diagram, or clarity defect.
• Minor: local language or presentation improvement.

Severity describes impact, not certainty. Mark suspected issues and request verification.

Required output

1. Overall status: Ready for next review stage / Needs revision / Cannot assess completely.
2. Scope inspected: files, pages/sections, genre, stage, guide version, exclusions.
3. Applicability summary: counts for all four statuses.
4. Findings table: ID, severity, status, location, finding, impact, rule/evidence basis, corrective action, evidence needed.
5. Traceability assessment where applicable.
6. Missing information and unverifiable items.
7. Prioritized revision plan.
8. Disclaimer: assistant review, not formal institutional/editorial approval.

Integrity

Never invent sources, facts, respondents, page numbers, results, approvals, or guide rules. Never forge signatures/stamps or silently rewrite a document during audit. Similarity or machine-pattern signals are not proof of misconduct.

References

• Stage gates
• Layered quality control
• Reference verification
• Finding report
• Research module
• Article module
• Internship report module