FACTUAL ACTIVITY RECORD · An activity record based on work that took place
Establishing a reusable publication-review baseline
Combining stage-proportionate review, evidence states, and revalidation triggers in one baseline
Purpose
Every site update was repeating research into publication scope, rights, data processing, service providers, and review conditions. A shared baseline was needed to separate verified facts from the current change and focus review on the delta.
The aim was a proportional model that does not demand a comprehensive audit for every low-risk routine change during the pre-commercialization preparation stage, while still failing closed on signals involving rights, secrets, personal data, transactions, or material disclosure mismatches.
Implementation
publication-review baseline was created as a single source of truth for purpose, applicability, limitations, business stage, responsible parties, verified facts, evidence states, and revalidation conditions. It also states that publication decisions and substantive legal conclusions are not automated.
- Review is divided into routine preparation-stage deltas, specialist review for concrete risk, and a comprehensive audit before commercialization.
- External review for the current change and the future comprehensive audit are tracked as separate states.
- Valid legal demands, secret exposure, rights-risk signals, new data collection or transactions, and material disclosure mismatches stop the process regardless of stage.
The business operator as an individual proprietor and the CEO's responsibilities were mapped across publication authority, rights facts, Japanese and English wording, legal and compliance business review, and service-provider facts. At the same time, current CEO review was distinguished from completion of an independent qualified comprehensive audit.
Evidence was classified as verified current, verified for a specific result, owner-attested, historical, conditional, unknown, or superseded. Publicly available general terms were also separated from their applicability to actual accounts, contracts, settings, and individual assets.
- A per-change checklist covers business stage, publication reach, target market, responsible parties, and content, rights, data, interface, and architecture deltas.
- Sales, payment, accounts, material personal-data processing, and regulated activities became triggers for the comprehensive audit.
- The boundary excludes a private address, secrets, contract text, and dashboard-specific values while retaining only the necessary verification outcome.
The first draft did not sufficiently cover preparation-stage proportionality, business identity, responsibility mapping, or the future external audit, so it was rebuilt after the CEO rejected it. Follow-up checks corrected a conflation of publication reach and target market, conflated external-review states, and incomplete mandatory stop conditions. A final self-expiring status statement was replaced with wording that directs current-state checks to external records.
The baseline defined three review tiers proportional to the change. Mandatory blockers cannot be bypassed through risk acceptance at any tier.
Rendering diagram…
What was confirmed
Verification results
The baseline contains all three stage-proportionate review tiers and fail-closed conditions for material signals.
Global public reach and the market actively being offered services are recorded as separate facts.
The decision that this internal baseline change did not require external review is limited to this change, while the future comprehensive audit remains planned and incomplete.
Required headings, eleven completion conditions, relative links, exclusion of address-like and secret-like values, and difference-formatting checks passed.
At the cutoff, the baseline had been applied to the target. No qualified external reviewer had been selected, and actual accounts, contracts, dashboard state, asset-specific rights, target market, address possession, and request-response operations had not been independently verified.
Basis for completion
The work was complete when the baseline was rebuilt to include business stage, responsible parties, and the external-audit boundary, the three specialist findings and self-expiring status contradiction were resolved, and the final checked content was applied to the target.