276 coral profiles reviewed in 28 batches

Follow-up available: The 28 specialist-follow-up designations below are the original audit snapshot. Read the later three-batch follow-up and current remaining questions.

Completion means each profile has an editorial/source review record. It does not mean every scientific claim, numerical care setting or photographed specimen has been independently validated. All gallery metadata was reviewed; 114 placements were not visually screened. Visual screening used contact sheets and selected images for gross mismatches, not diagnostic confirmation.

What changed

• Corrected claim-to-source links and narrowed experimental findings to the species, stages and methods actually studied.
• Reconciled supported accepted names and families while preserving historical names, provenance and stable profile links.
• Corrected solitary-versus-colonial descriptions, stale photo narratives, malformed locality text and copied wording from unrelated organisms.
• Retained supported operator and planning guidance with explicit scope; removed precise prescriptions lacking a defensible basis in the reviewed sources.
• Replaced the coral “Reviewed profile” badge with “Editorial structure checked” and added separate source/image review notes.
• Withheld the sea pen’s incoming external occurrence payload after confirming that it would otherwise restore an unsupported Arctic map assignment. Documented textual range context remains; this is not a claim that sea pens are absent from Arctic waters.
• Preserved existing photographs, original bytes, photographer credits, permissions and licences. No new media were added.

Evidence and access limits

Fresh primary or authoritative sources were retrieved at full-page or indexed-excerpt level for 209 profiles. For 67 profiles, the relevant access was blocked or the source check relied on an existing record. These remain reviewable limitations; blocked access is not evidence that a claim is false. The source ledger records 267 full-page/text checks, 42 indexed-excerpt checks, 93 blocked attempts and 326 existing-record checks. These are retrieval records, not unique publications or independently verified claims.

128 profiles record remaining scientific, source-access or husbandry questions. The 28 specialist-follow-up designations are a subset of the review outcomes and are not a count of demonstrated misidentifications. Exact-species confirmation may need closer corallite/sclerite details, specialist examination or other diagnostic evidence. Photograph licences and filenames do not establish biological identity.

Batch ledger

27 batches of ten, followed by six profiles in batch 28. Profiles were reviewed in these groups; supported changes are published together in this release.

Search all reviewed profiles

How to interpret this review

The review was AI-assisted and considered the stored profile content, source retrievals and image screening. Existing reference records were not relabelled as newly retrieved. Published operating conditions remain observations or planning guidance, not universal safe limits. No blanket peer review or specialist certification is claimed. Profile notes retain uncertainty and evidence still required.

Validation note: an unrelated fish-count test expects 289 eligible profiles but both the pre-review and reviewed catalogues produce 335. The same failure was reproduced on the baseline; no fish data or test assertion was changed.

The release checks validate coverage of all 276 records, exact pre-edit field values, unchanged non-coral profiles, preservation of the R2 media manifest, consistent public descriptions and the care-evidence gap policy. Reviewed unknown values remain absent rather than being refilled to make a form look complete.

Review basis: published version 519, source commit 7f164eec38043b85d8dbdad479c5fbed10dfa361. Subsequent source updates should trigger another check of affected findings. Field-correction counts exclude the new review metadata attached to every coral profile.