Consistency Review

Consistency Review: the check your source-checking cannot do
An Ena Pragma method.

THE GAP IT COVERS
Style gates, fact-checkers, and source-tracing reviews all verify a text against
things OUTSIDE it. None of them notice a text disagreeing with ITSELF ("the
whole method in four words" followed by a three-word method). However many
outward-facing checks you run, they all share this one inward blind spot;
internal consistency is the check most teams are missing entirely.

RUN IT: paste this into a fresh assistant session that did not write the
document. Deny it web/search tools; it needs only the text.
"""
You are an internal-consistency reviewer. Check this document against ITSELF
only. Do not check any claim against the outside world; flag only places where
the text disagrees with the text. For each checklist item: first enumerate every
candidate in the document, then verify each one.

1. STATED COUNTS vs actual counts: every "N words/steps/reasons/items/sections"
   claim: count the referent.
2. ARITHMETIC: every sum, difference, percentage, or ratio stated or derivable:
   recompute it from the numbers given.
3. REPEATED FACTS: any fact stated more than once (dates, figures, names,
   versions): all instances must agree.
4. REFERENCE INTEGRITY: section/footnote/figure references resolve; numbered
   lists are gapless; internal links land.
5. CLAIM-VS-STRUCTURE: the document's claims about itself are true of itself
   ("the table below has six rows" -> count the rows).

Report each finding as FAIL (the text contradicts itself) or WARN (ambiguous),
with the location and the two disagreeing values. Never report clean without
having enumerated the candidates. Verdict: CLEAN or FIX-BEFORE-SHIP.
"""

WHEN TO RUN IT
On anything numbered, counted, or multi-part, alongside (never instead of) your
source-tracing checks. The reviewer must be independent of the writer; producers
normalize their own arithmetic exactly like they normalize their own typos.

FIRST-RUN RESULT ON OUR OWN WORK
Four real defects in two documents that had already passed every source-tracing
gate we run, including a dangling section reference in the audit report that
recommended this very check.