The @orgdevkit/kit-reviewer member surface — M11, the list of who reads along and what each of them sees. One row per person, true at once of what was chosen, what that opens and what is the case today. Over synthetic invitations: no database, no model, nothing written anywhere.
The kit derives every fact and decides nothing else — the level, the counted sentence, whether a preview exists at all come from deellijst(), and every write leaves through a prop this page holds. The switches are the design's own honest states and they compose with what you click.
5 reading · 0 switched off
One row per reader: who they are, what they see, and what they cost you this month. Behind Settings you pick one of three levels per person — full access, full access opened on a reading list, or a limited view — and switch your own replies and your medical data on or off. Everyone sees the fixed layer in any case, so nobody reads half a plan.
Reading and replying cost nothing; only a deepening by the assistant comes off your daily budget. The full breakdown is on .
The same kit from the reader's side: their own reading list as the first chapter, the chapters as they see them, and the counted banner over what is readable for them. Nothing here reads a level to decide what may be drawn — a level only decides what may be said about what the three doors already returned.
full · 5 readable · 2 addressed · partial
This is research a person is doing into their own health, with a team that gathers and weighs sources. It is not a medical record and not a second opinion: it is research they are preparing for conversations with you. You are signing nothing off here, and what you write changes not one word of the plan. It stays, word for word, for them.
What they ask of you is below: their own question at each point. See whether the picture matches what you know of them, and put a note or a question beside it in your own words.
The point itself is the plan reader's — its title, body, citations and GRADE come from that kit, and this frame is what the reviewer's side adds.
Does this match what you see in people who have had this for years?
“Not shared” is not a fault: those chapters are not part of what this person shares with you. We do not keep track of what you read.
One point laid against this person's library, and the concept written from the reader's own words. The two halves of the screen answer to different doors: their question and their concept stay readable through a pause, and what the library said does not. Every control asks summaryWrites first, so nothing is offered that the database would refuse.
ready · 3 cards · draft
Your point and the point from the plan were both laid against this person’s library. What comes back is what the sources contain. It is not a ruling about who is right.
About Sleep and how it movedI want to know whether the three sources measure sleep in the same way before we read them beside each other.
Your own words, exactly as you wrote them. Nothing here was shortened or tidied.
That is a gap in this library. It says nothing about what you asked.
I am asking one thing: do these three sources measure sleep in the same way? Everything else follows from that.
edited by youThis is a concept of your words, written by the assistant. It becomes your statement when you agree to it. Before that it is not one.
Stop here and this travels as unfinished, visible as “not agreed yet”, and nobody reads it as your view.
Every verb the screen does not perform itself leaves through a prop. The ones that change this list are applied here; the two that are routes into other screens are only recorded. Nothing is written anywhere, and no model reads along.