How should a team review changing knowledge before an AI assistant uses it?
Define who may submit a change, who approves it, and how the published answer is checked against the new source. Include effective dates, withdrawn rules and a failed-update scenario in acceptance; a review screen alone does not prove that visitors receive the right version.
Reviewed
All answersWhat to check
- Assign an owner and effective date to each rule or offer.
- Separate requested approval permissions from permissions already demonstrated.
- Test the old question after a publish and check what happens if the change is wrong.
| Change | Review question | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| New rule | Who confirms wording and effective date? | Approved source and a matching visitor answer |
| Expired offer | What replaces it, and where else does it appear? | Checks of the affected pages and representative questions |
| Incorrect update | Who can correct it and how? | A demonstrated correction using agreed permissions |
How to use the evidence
Write the required roles, publication steps, audit history and recovery behavior into the scope. Do not infer a specific approval hierarchy from the phrase “knowledge review.” Preserve an authoritative rule and test its conditions, rather than collecting answer text with no owner.
Where WEAVIST fits
WEAVIST Workspace supports knowledge submissions and site knowledge review, alongside usage, pending questions and follow-up to-dos. Access is invitation-only; the ACE page does not publish a role matrix or a particular multi-step approval policy.
Follow-up questions
Can we require manager approval?
Describe that approval rule and ask for it to be demonstrated in the proposed scope. Knowledge review by itself does not establish your required permission hierarchy.
What should we test after changing a rule?
Ask the original question, a wording variation and an exception question. Compare the answers and linked sources with the approved rule and its effective date.