Some construction questions need qualified review, local requirements or manufacturer-specific evidence. Those pages stay unavailable until the required specialist review and supporting evidence are in place.
What matters
- A page that requires named specialist review remains unpublished until a real reviewer with relevant qualifications is verified and assigned.
- Equiptova does not create fictional reviewer names, credentials or endorsements.
- Model-code references do not substitute for adopted state or local requirements.
- The first public search corpus deliberately excludes specialist-review process pages while their review and jurisdiction evidence remains incomplete.
How to use this page
This policy describes the controls used for the current public site. It is written to match implemented behavior: the launch excludes unresolved specialist-review process pages, keeps source and review states separate, and does not claim professional review where no verified reviewer exists.
Do not imply professional review where none exists
Some topics can be handled with deterministic math and documented sources. Others depend on professional interpretation, local rules, safety-critical conditions or manufacturer-specific evidence and need a higher review burden.
Review is conditional
A page is not “expert reviewed” merely because a reviewer workflow exists elsewhere on the site.
Reviewer evidence matters
Named specialist review should be tied to an actual reviewer and the scope that person reviewed.
Blocked stays blocked
Pages that require unresolved specialist evidence should remain unavailable rather than being dressed up as complete.