I also found problems in the other inputs that will affect the repair:
1. **Internal links are off-topic.** Both dataset entries (Hoka and Inuikii) are about shoes, not tofflor. Gate 6 and the contract’s `internal_link_relevance_required` need token overlap with the target phrase, so neither link is clearly relevant. I can keep them only if you confirm they are acceptable, or you can supply tofflor-specific URLs.
2. **Contract claims have no matching research facts.** DinSko (60-day returns), Skopunkten (3 for 2), and Shepherd (materials) appear in the content plan and snapshot plan, but no research fact or verified fact supports them. Under Gate 3 these claims cannot be sourced, so they will be moved to the rumor list or removed unless you provide sources.
3. **Verified facts are thin.** `verified_facts_min_4` is `false` in the quality gates. The file has 5 verified entries, but only Birkenstock and UGG Disquette are tier 1 and Birkenstock is verified by only one source. Gate 4 can correct conflicting values but cannot confirm claims beyond these.
4. **Timeline dates need checking.** Fjällull’s guide is dated 2026-11-05. If that is in the future relative to publication, it should not appear as a published fact. The Testkollen date (2026-03-28) should also be checked.
5. **Research confidence is low.** Under Gate 10 and Gate 11, most tier-3 and low-confidence claims (for example, the Rehabprodukter size table and the Testkollen ”half size” rule) must be hedged or moved to the rumor list, not stated as fact.
6. **Mismatched contract and research.** The research notes are built around a materials and sizing angle. The contract is built around innetofflor, slip-in, fluffiga, utetofflor, and stötdämpning, and asks for 2,500 words. Several H2s in the contract have no research support, so the article will have thin sections unless more sources are added.
