The paragraph-length check now sees a bold lead-in. Counting sentences needed a space straight after the full stop, so any closing mark standing between the two hid the break: an emphasised or code-spanned sentence, a parenthesised aside, or a closing quotation mark each read as no sentence end at all, and a paragraph that emphasised every sentence read as one. A long paragraph written with bold lead-ins could therefore pass the check it should have failed. Measured over the thirty-seven design documents in this repository's own architecture folder, the check reported eighty-one over-long paragraphs where the true number is one hundred and twenty-seven — it missed forty-six that crossed the budget unseen, and the mark that hid them was a bold span in one hundred and twenty-one of the one hundred and twenty-six mis-counted paragraphs. Those paragraphs are counted now, and the check reports the same file and line it always did.
A closing mark in any script closes a sentence. The marks recognised are every Unicode close-punctuation and final-quote character, so a document written with corner brackets, guillemets or angle brackets is counted the same way as one written with parentheses — and so is a strikethrough span. The set is those Unicode categories rather than every character that looks like a closer: an ASCII > stays out, because in Markdown it closes an autolink around a URL, and admitting it would misread more documents than it would fix. One shape stays undecidable and is unchanged: a single-letter sentence end inside a code span reads as an enumeration label, because an enumeration label written the same way has to keep reading as one.
The decomposition rubric names the third place a candidate can land. It offered a document of the part's own or a row in the element catalogue. A part can satisfy the qualifying rule and still belong above the document holding it, so the rubric now says to route it upward and how to record that. The case this catches is a document that carries the changes it is asking of a ratified parent: ratifying it would accept those changes by implication, because its own reviewer has no standing to accept them. The qualifying rule now says plainly that it does not settle which document holds the result, and that none of the six criteria will tell you: they ask whether a candidate differs from its parent, not at what altitude the people who must accept its decisions hold that authority. So standing is a question to ask separately every time the rule is met.
A design review no longer reports a correctly routed part as a missing document. The reviewer's decomposition checklist asked whether a qualifying child had a document of its own. A child whose decision only someone above this document can accept — a ratified parent's reviewer, say — has a link instead, by design, and would have been reported as a defect. The checklist now looks for either, and says which correction the part needed turns on standing. It also gains an item of its own for the case that started this: a document carrying the changes it is asking of a document above it that someone else accepts.