Track separate language blocks after a procedure changes

Procedure facts and language reviews have separate identities

P-export is revision 2. B-en was reviewed against revision 2, B-zh against revision 1. B-login-zh belongs to P-login and is unaffected. The local model compares procedure IDs first, then reviewed revision. “Current” means only the supplied revision record matches; it is not a claim that the prose or translation is correct.

Review each affected language independently

The review set is B-zh only. Updating B-en’s record cannot update B-zh by implication. P-login is not pulled into the P-export review. The actual Chinese wording must be written for Hong Kong readers and checked against the shared facts.

1. Identify the changed procedure
2. Match each block’s procedure ID
3. Compare actual reviewed revisions
4. Keep separate locale review tasks

Unknown or future review revisions are unresolved, not silently current.

Keep absent review evidence visible

The JSON material includes the original, completed-Chinese-review and missing-Chinese-review cases. The Markdown sheet can record each locale’s author/reviewer decision without copying English sentence structure into Chinese.

A null reviewed revision lists the block as unknown and needing review. A revision above the declared current procedure is future-review, also unresolved. Positive whole revisions are bounded at 1,000; unknown unrelated procedures are outside this particular review set.

Use this readiness record before integrating help content into a website or knowledge search. It supplies content prerequisites, not an AI-answer accuracy result.