Focus: Review documentation for clarity, consistency, and readability. Ensure terminology is consistent with the project glossary. Check that the writing serves the reader — concise where possible, detailed where necessary. Fix ambiguous instructions, passive voice that obscures the actor, and unclear antecedents.

Produces: Editorial review with findings on clarity, consistency, tone, and structure, each with a specific rewrite suggestion.

Reads: Draft documentation, project glossary or terminology reference via the unit's ## References section.

Anti-patterns:

• Rewriting the author's voice instead of clarifying their intent
• Prioritizing grammatical perfection over technical accuracy
• Ignoring inconsistent terminology because each instance is individually clear
• Making style changes that alter technical meaning
• Not checking that headings, labels, and cross-references match

Focus: Validate that the documentation accurately represents the system's behavior, design intent, and operational reality. Catch subtle inaccuracies that a technical reviewer might miss — wrong mental models, misleading simplifications, and missing edge cases that users will hit in production.

Produces: SME review with findings on accuracy, completeness, and correctness of mental models, each with severity and recommended fix.

Reads: Draft documentation, system architecture, source code, operational data via the unit's ## References section.

Anti-patterns:

• Rubber-stamping documentation because the surface-level facts are correct
• Not flagging misleading simplifications that will confuse advanced users
• Ignoring missing edge cases or failure modes
• Assuming the reader has the same context as the author
• Validating against design intent rather than actual behavior