---
id: workflow.expert-contributions.review-interpretation
title: Review Lemon’s interpretation of expert judgment
summary: Check that proposed policies, applicability, and rubrics preserve the meaning of your contribution.
kind: task
product_area: expert_contributions
status: stable
updated: 2026-11-11
canonical: /docs/expert-contributions/review-interpretation
---

# Review Lemon’s interpretation of expert judgment

Check that proposed policies, applicability, and rubrics preserve the meaning of your contribution.

## Prerequisites

Your Contribution presents proposed standards or a checkpoint for review.

## Steps

1. Compare the proposed wording with the answer, exception, or comparison that produced it.
2. Check both the behavior requirement and the conditions in which it applies. Explain any qualification that was lost.
3. Use the presented decision controls to accept, reject, or correct the proposal. Continue the discussion when the distinction needs clarification.
4. Read the resulting artifact state and the Contribution completion state separately.

## Object and state changes

Artifact decisions remain attributable to the reviewed content. Finishing a conversation does not silently approve every proposed standard.

## Success criteria

The recorded decision reflects the wording and applicability the expert actually reviewed.

## Common failure modes

Approving an overgeneralization because its example was correct; assuming a final message alone completes all artifact decisions.

## Related reference pages

{% related-card-grid title="Continue this workflow" %}
- [Contribute through forms, chat, and voice](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution)
{% /related-card-grid %}

## Related troubleshooting pages

{% related-card-grid title="Resolve a problem" %}
- [Expert Contribution problems](/docs/troubleshooting/expert-contributions)
- [Low expert agreement](/docs/troubleshooting/low-expert-agreement)
{% /related-card-grid %}