Reviewing continuity
Continuity review compares story claims against source evidence and accepted canon.
The goal is not to make the manuscript mechanically consistent at all costs. The goal is to make continuity decisions visible.
Start with canon-critical areas
Review the parts of the story where mistakes are most expensive:
- main character identities;
- family or faction relationships;
- timeline order;
- locations and travel;
- magic, technology, or world rules;
- secrets and reveals;
- named objects or artifacts.
Read each item as a question
A review item is not a verdict. Treat it as a question:
- Is this claim supported?
- Is this reference ambiguous?
- Did the relationship change?
- Is the source outdated?
- Is this a real contradiction or an intentional reveal?
Use source evidence
Open the evidence before deciding. Continuity problems often come from a mismatch between summary and exact wording.
If the evidence is not enough, do not force a decision. Mark the item as unresolved or keep it under review.
Decide the type of fix
A continuity issue can require different actions:
- update canon;
- merge entities;
- split entities;
- correct a relationship;
- revise the manuscript;
- add a story-bible note;
- reject the item as not a problem.
Preserve intentional ambiguity
Some ambiguity is part of storytelling. A hidden identity, unreliable narrator, or delayed reveal should not necessarily be “fixed.”
Arc should help you see the ambiguity, not erase it without permission.