Keeping a review decision intact across callable workflow stages

A useful result can still require review#

Intake checks the title, source type, declared rights status and text. Unclear or forbidden rights labels block the normal chain. A sacred-material flag can instead permit a Story Ledger while leaving the material awaiting review.

The brief carries that distinction forward: review material remains not ready for a script. The next workflow receives an explicit decision alongside provenance and cautions, rather than having to infer permission from the presence of text. These checks evaluate supplied metadata; they don't independently establish rights or cultural suitability.

Calling a later stage must not change the rule#

The stages are reusable outside the demo chain. The ledger rejects a blocked result, an explicit stop flag or blocked adaptation status. The brief checks a rights allowlist and the top-level blocked flag, but doesn't independently reject adaptation_allowed=false. Entering there directly can therefore produce a different decision from entering through the ledger.

I'd align those checks before extending extraction, then vary the entry point, field types and contradictory flags in tests. The current builders use sample-specific branches and templates, and storage_candidate describes a proposed record rather than a completed database write. The three demo fixtures haven't been executed for this account.