To continue, I need:
1. **The raw article HTML** from P2. If you want me to reconstruct it from the research notes instead (Gate 1 allows this), I can do that, but it will be a new draft and should be reviewed as one.
2. **The site article list** for the internal links (2–3 entries, each with Title, Slug, and URL). Without it, the internal links will be omitted rather than invented.
Some issues to resolve before or during repair:
– **Claims in the content plan that aren’t in the research facts:** the Venice 2018 premiere and the Netflix 2018 distribution are listed as ”confirmed” in the plan, but no research fact supports them. Gate 3 would require removing them or sourcing them.
– **Unsupported FAQ topics:** the plan’s top questions about Keanu Reeves, Sandra Bullock, and Alice’s suicide have no support in the research notes. I would drop these rather than keep them.
– **Date mismatch:** the SVT entry has an iso_date of 2023-12-21, which is likely a page-crawl date and not a publication date. I would not present it as a review date.
– **Source-count gates:** the research itself reports that it fails the 18 unique-source and 10 must-cite minimums (Gate 2 and quality gates). The article will need either more sources or a documented exception.
– **Garbled source text:** the Chimes Freedom fact begins with ”Recensenten Kate-liknande bedömning,” which needs rewording before any quote or attribution is used.
– **Low research confidence:** Gate 10 requires the rumor list to match or exceed the confirmed list. Several claims are tier-3 or low-confidence and will need hedging under Gate 11.
Send the article HTML (or confirm reconstruction) and the link list, and I’ll run all gates and return the repaired HTML.
Relaterade artiklar
Robin Lund är senior reporter på Stadsfokus och bevakar dagliga nyheter i hela Sverige.