# Cross-file coherence check — before the first lock Run this required review after drafting both `identity.md` and `visual-language.md`, before setting the first locked version. It checks the places where a restriction in one file can quietly contradict a rule or reference in the other. ## Procedure 1. Copy every bullet from the `What IS NOT` section into a review list. 2. List the visual-language composition rules, reference-pin filenames, banned vocabulary, and preferred vocabulary. 3. For each restriction, ask: could this description also apply to a proposed composition, visual element, or reference pin? 4. Record every plausible conflict for operator review. The check surfaces candidates; it does not decide taste. ## Generic example | Restriction | Visual rule | Candidate conflict? | | --- | --- | --- | | "Avoid nostalgic styling" | "Use era-specific props" | Yes — define whether the props are reference material or a visual requirement. | | "Avoid high-contrast scenes" | "Use a dark subject against a bright background" | Yes — clarify the intended contrast range. | | "Avoid literal storytelling" | "Show a named narrative event" | Yes — keep the scene abstract or narrow the restriction. | ## Resolve candidates For each real contradiction, choose one explicit outcome: - Clarify scope: distinguish a broad tone restriction from a narrowly permitted visual technique. - Remove or change the visual rule/reference if the restriction is load-bearing. - Narrow or remove the restriction if the visual direction is the actual decision. Patch both files in the same review pass and bump the version. Do not lock a known contradiction without documenting it as an open decision in both files. ## Report format ```text Coherence check: , , . Changes: - - Lock status: ready / needs operator decision. ``` This check is only for cross-file conflicts. Proofread the individual files and run the deterministic linter separately.