A good review record lets another person understand what was checked, what evidence was available and why a status was assigned.
Start with the exact object reviewed
Record the complete hostname or public claim without shortening it. Note whether the item is described as a primary URL, mirror, onion reference or general address.
Role labels matter because a backup claim should not be evaluated as if it were the primary address.
List evidence and its source
For each piece of evidence, record the publisher, URL, date and relevant statement. Separate direct observations from claims made by third parties.
This makes provenance visible and prevents copied statements from being counted twice.
Assign a defined status
Use a small controlled vocabulary such as reviewed, verification pending, maintenance or offline. Explain the criteria behind each label.
Avoid vague terms like safe or official unless the required evidence is explicitly documented.
Capture unresolved questions
Write down missing ownership evidence, conflicting redirects or stale timestamps. Open questions are part of the result, not a failure to complete the record.
They also define what must be checked in the next review.
Schedule the next review
Set a new review trigger based on time or material change. A domain, redirect or source update should cause the previous conclusion to be revisited.
Time-bound records are more reliable than permanent labels.