Transparency
Revisions
Specific reader and maintainer revisions are shown here by default. The broader source-review and automatic change log remains available under All sources for technical transparency.
How a revision happens
Wondering how to propose a revision?
Click on any verse in the reader, then within the toolbar select the three-dot menu, click Suggest a revision, provide your reasoning, and submit. You may need to be signed in to submit.
1. A change is proposed
A public proposal, maintainer note, or review pass points to a source-grounded improvement.
2. Evidence is weighed
Source text, context, and review notes are checked before a change lands.
3. Accepted edits land
Accepted wording, rationale, and any public credit stay in history.
What counts as a revision?
A revision is a targeted change to a committed verse β an English polish, a restored rhetorical force, a preserved wordplay, or a project-wide consistency fix (like the Ξ§ΟΞΉΟΟΟΟ β Messiah normalization). Revisions don't overwrite the original draft; they layer on top, and the previous rendering is kept as a footnote on every revised verse. Detailed policy in REVISION_METHODOLOGY.md.
What do the tiers mean?
Tier 1 is mechanical stylistic polish β awkward English cleaned up where the suggested rewrite shares most of its words with the draft. These are auto-applied with a word-overlap safety check.
Tier 2 is Claude Opus 4.7 adjudicating Gemini's flagged majors β mistranslations, lexical fixes, and grammar losses whose rationale cites specific Hebrew / Greek evidence. A Tier-2 rewrite is only applied if the rationale grounds the change in BDAG, HALOT, BDB, or in source-language grammar.
Anything requiring policy judgment (theological weight, cross-verse consistency) is kept out of the automatic-safe-fix path.