An approval belongs to a version.
Connect each decision to the exact statement and evidence that were reviewed.
Consider a reviewer approving a ten-kilogram payload claim under specified indoor conditions. If an author changes the sentence to say one hundred kilograms outdoors, the reviewer has not approved that new claim. A name beside an editable paragraph is insufficient history.
Superlimen records the claim version, reviewer identity, policy version, attestations and decision rationale together. Authors cannot approve their own claim or version. High-risk claims need two independent reviewers. A new claim version requires a new approval. When retained source text continues after a linked excerpt, approval is refused unless the reviewer attests that they read that later text. The attestation is stored with the decision and does not prove that the text was read.
A hold decision should explain what is missing: a test condition, an unsupported inference or a result that refers to another product version. The author can address the concern in a new version while the earlier decision remains in the record.
AI can help identify a gap or suggest narrower wording. Its assessment remains advisory. The authorized reviewer owns the approval decision, including whether the source is credible and appropriate for the intended use.