Revalidate review comments after the draft changes
Review comments can outlive the wording that prompted them. Before applying or closing old advice, inspect its concern against the current draft. Keep the original comment and reviewed version intact, then record a current disposition. This manual practice does not merge competing drafts or imply a Kiguri comment-tracking integration.
Preserve the baseline and the original concern
Use an expressly fictional workshop invitation. Version one asks participants to bring two diagrams, describes a discussion lasting around half an hour, and tells them to share a screen. Comment C1 asks for exact start and end times. C2 asks for a text alternative if screen sharing is unavailable. C3 asks which diagram should be discussed first.
Version two requests one diagram and gives a 13:00 to 13:30 UTC discussion time. It removes the explicit screen-sharing sentence. Keep both versions and the exact comments. Record each original anchor and the concern behind it; a location alone cannot explain whether the advice still matters.
Compare C1 with the current evidence
The current invitation now supplies an exact interval and time zone. C1 can be proposed as addressed, with that sentence as supporting evidence. Do not simply label it done because the paragraph changed. Its original question was about timing, and the new text directly answers that question.
If another part of the invitation still says a different time, retain the contradiction rather than closing C1 prematurely. Inspect the whole relevant draft, not only the replacement sentence. A local correction may leave the reader facing two inconsistent instructions.
Keep a vanished anchor separate from a solved concern
C2's original screen-sharing instruction disappeared, but the current task still asks participants to discuss a diagram. Its concern about an alternative representation can survive. Record C2 as still open or needing clarification unless the current material actually explains how someone can follow without the visual sharing path.
Do not infer that deleting an instruction made every associated concern irrelevant. Ask the reviewer which requirement they intended, and check the current task's assumptions. A moved anchor, a removed sentence, and an addressed concern are three different observations.
Identify a genuinely superseded comment
C3 concerns the ordering of two diagrams. If the complete revised invitation and linked materials now require only one diagram, the old sequencing question is superseded by that changed premise. Record the reason and relevant current wording. Check that no other instruction still requests two diagrams before proposing this disposition.
Superseded does not mean the original reviewer was wrong. Their comment could have been useful for version one. Leave the historical comment untouched and explain why it no longer applies. If its intended concern was broader than ordering, ask for clarification instead of imposing a convenient interpretation.
Verify material dispositions with the reviewer
Create a short ledger containing comment identity, baseline, intended concern, current evidence, proposed state, and remaining question. Use distinct states such as addressed, still applicable, superseded, and needs clarification. Ask the appropriate reviewer to confirm material changes through the team's ordinary review process.
The finish check is whether another reader can explain why each comment remains open or no longer requires the original action. Do not close every old comment merely to obtain a tidy list. A changed draft needs evidence of current applicability, not silent rewriting of past advice or automatic approval.
