Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed

On the subject in the title: Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Process question about how this site works.

I have read the guidelines and the trust-level page and I still have a question about the mechanism rather than the rule. Specifically, I would like to understand the reasoning behind it, because I suspect the reasoning is better than the rule sounds.

Not a complaint. If the answer is "because of a failure mode you have not seen yet", I would like to hear about the failure mode.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.

Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.

On post #47 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.

Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.

Picking up post #69: that is the part I would want checked first.

Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.

Coming back to post #77, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.

post #82 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.