Review and Pilot Status

Curriculum readiness answers whether a teaching path is usable. Quality review records what independent evidence supports a stronger claim. The canonical quality data is content/portal/quality-matrix.json.

Dimension	Reviewed	Battle-tested	Evidence examples
Editorial	Required	Required	clarity, terminology, and link audit
Technical	Required	Required	reproduced code, commands, diagrams, and standards claims
Assessment	Required	Required	outcome mapping, calibration, transfer, and remediation review
Accessibility	Required	Required	document and required-artifact accessibility audit
Security	Required	Required	safe labs, secret handling, threat and disclosure review
External review	Not required	Required	named academic or practitioner review record
Learner pilot	Not required	Required	completion evidence, observed friction, and remediation

Build success and page count are necessary operational signals, but neither is review evidence.

The September 2026 audit records specific teaching gaps and repairs. The new Advanced Engineering Path has ten authored studios awaiting independent review and a learner pilot; its existence does not promote any core or specialization quality status.

Current Recorded State

Scope	Readiness	Editorial / technical / assessment / accessibility / security	External review	Learner pilot
Pre-Semester and Semesters 0-10	Learner-ready	not-started	not-started	not-started
AI Engineering specialization	Learner-ready	in-review	not-started	not-started
Security Engineering specialization	Learner-ready	in-review	not-started	not-started

The core rows record structural and automated-validation evidence only. They must remain below Reviewed until every required review dimension has a named result and supporting evidence. They must remain below Battle-tested until external review and learner-pilot friction have also been recorded and remediated.