Editing Long Documents Consistently

Editing Long Documents Consistently

Core Rule

For a semantic fact change, the edit unit is every active instance of that fact, not the sentence named by the user. A small diff is desirable only after the full semantic impact surface is known.

Do not modify files outside the task's authorized scope. This Skill strengthens consistency checks; it does not expand write authority.

Workflow

1. Establish Current Truth

Read the authoritative source and the relevant complete sections before editing. Distinguish the new effective fact from historical records and unresolved alternatives.

2. Search Before Editing

Search the whole active artifact and build an impact list covering:

• the old value, conclusion, status, version, ID, and relation;
• synonyms, paraphrases, negative forms, and competing statements;
• headings, tables, summaries, conclusions, checklists, and examples;
• 见 §X, section-number references, and passages that summarize the changed section.

Search hits are navigation candidates, not semantic proof. Read enough surrounding context to classify each hit as active, historical, quoted, or unrelated.

Before adding the new fact, answer explicitly: Which existing statements does this make obsolete?

3. Edit the Complete Impact Surface

Update every affected active statement in the same edit cycle. Remove obsolete active claims or move them into an explicitly labeled historical or superseded record when audit history must remain.

Do not leave an old statement beside a new statement and assume the newer one silently overrides it. Do not defer known affected locations to a later round.

4. Re-read File Truth

After editing, re-read the changed sections plus their summaries, conclusions, tables, and inbound/outbound section references from the actual file. Never close consistency from conversational memory or from a diff alone.

5. Mechanical Completion Gate

Do not claim completion until all checks pass:

1. Whole-artifact searches for the old value, old relation, old status, and known paraphrases show no contradictory active residue.
2. Any remaining old value appears only in a clearly labeled historical, quoted, or superseded context.
3. Section references and semantic restatements were checked separately; a zero result for one literal string is insufficient.
4. The new fact is consistent in the operative section, summaries, tables, conclusions, and acceptance language.
5. Report the search scope, residual matches and their classification, or state that no active residual remains.

Review Asymmetry

A located, reproducible contradiction is existence evidence and outranks a generic PASS. A broad PASS cannot close a specific finding. Close each such finding only by:

• fixing it and rerunning the relevant checks; or
• rebutting it with source evidence and a reproducible explanation.

Guardrails

• Do not delete legitimate history merely to force zero matches; label and separate it from current truth.
• Do not rewrite the whole document when targeted edits cover the complete impact surface.
• Do not change unrelated wording, layout, or style under the guise of consistency.
• Do not treat wording polish as a blocker when the active semantics are already consistent.

Example

If §2 changes the current table count from 14 to 23, search not only 14, but also phrases such as 仅覆盖十四张, conclusions derived from the old count, tables listing the scope, and 见 §2 summaries. Update every active dependency in one cycle. A dated historical line may retain 14 only when it is explicitly a historical snapshot.

Common Rationalizations