Who this guide helps
Writers commissioning a rules review
The short answer
Test rules against actual story events and exceptions. A rules review should explain which contradiction affects the story rather than demand that every mystery disappear.
Practical workflow
List capability, cost, limit and exception with scene references. In an original invented example, a gate requiring two keys cannot later open with one unless an exception is established. Mark deliberately hidden explanations separately. Ask the reviewer to identify the reader consequence and suggest more than one remedy where possible.
What a useful handoff looks like
Request an issue log showing rule, conflicting scene and proposed revision. Keep author decisions separate from reviewer suggestions. Update the approved version only after the author chooses a remedy, then check related scenes.
Mistakes to avoid
Do not present a preferred creative rule as objective law or let an unreviewed tool rewrite canon. Intentional ambiguity can remain if its purpose is clear.
Working example: fields to record
| Field | Illustrative entry — replace with your own facts |
|---|---|
| Rule | Two-key gate in illustrative example |
| Conflict | One-key opening without explanation |
| Decision | Author approves exception or scene revision |
Add your own entries; the example is illustrative. Keep sensitive information private.
Sources & further checks
Official references are starting points for further checks, not approval of a specific case, product or project.
Editorial note
AI-assisted editorial guidance; not expert certification.
Original editorial guidance. Examples are illustrative, not client cases, measured outcomes or promised services.
Legal and health-related decisions require appropriately qualified local professionals. This site is an independent editorial resource, not a law firm or medical provider.