Skip to main content

Structured Review Workflow

What it does​

A built-in, audit-grade review workflow for every artifact — AI-generated or hand-authored: submit → assigned reviewers comment → owner dispositions each comment → approve/reject/baseline.

Why it matters​

Hardware reviews happen in PDFs and emails today. Comments get lost, dispositions are tribal knowledge, and audit trails don't exist. Creopus makes review state a first-class object.

How it works​

  • Lazy review sessions — created the moment the first reviewer is added.
  • Comment severity tagging — critical / major / minor / editorial.
  • Disposition states — open → accepted / rejected / deferred / noted (with reason and audit fields).
  • Round tracking — currentRound + rounds[] per-round snapshots.
  • Deadline + extension audit log — who extended, when, why.
  • Implement-on-review — one click on an "accepted" comment triggers AI to patch the artifact in place.

Workflow states​

draft → in_review → change_requested → in_review → approved → baselined
                ↘ rejected

State transitions are logged with actor, timestamp, and reason.

Strict change control after baseline​

Baselining isn't just a label — it locks the document:

  • Once a document has ever been baselined, direct edits to its main content are blocked platform-wide. That applies to humans and to the AI agent equally.
  • The sanctioned change route is a working copy: copy the main document, make your changes there, review the colored diff against main, and merge. Every merge is a tracked revision, so the baseline's audit trail stays intact.
  • Attempting a direct edit surfaces a clear redirect ("Start a working copy →") rather than a silent failure.
  • Metadata that doesn't alter the engineering content — document info, renames, hierarchy links, attachments — stays editable.

This is the same discipline as an aerospace/automotive change board, encoded in the platform: baselined truth changes only through a reviewed, merged delta.