# Review expectations [#review-expectations]

Use this page when you want to know how a maintainer will review a
contribution.

## What reviewers check [#what-reviewers-check]

Reviewers check:

* the contribution is routed to the owning package
* source citations prove the changed tax behaviour
* facts, rules, calculators and tax years use canonical schemas and branded
  IDs
* HTTP and SDK layers do not hide tax business logic
* golden tests, type tests, API compatibility tests and SDK compatibility
  tests match the changed surface
* expected errors use canonical tagged errors such as `CalculatorServiceError`
* optional policy uses schema-owned fields, `Option` and `Match`
* public docs use current names and avoid stale aliases
* release-impact notes and Changesets are correct

## Documentation review [#documentation-review]

When docs change, reviewers also check:

* second person voice
* Australian spelling
* sentence-case headings
* no marketing language
* links resolve to the source of truth
* diagrams clarify a decision, ownership path or validation flow

Read [Documentation review](https://github.com/crcorbett/taxkit/blob/a151e51e8a30247526fa93412df046955846eca4/docs/standards/documentation-review.md)
for the full audit checklist.

## Return requests [#return-requests]

A reviewer may ask you to update the PR when evidence is missing, ownership is
wrong, a public contract changed without compatibility notes or tax behaviour
appears in HTTP, SDK or docs-only code.