Methodology

How Wise Wombat thinks about continuity

Wise Wombat treats manuscript assessment as evidence-backed diagnostic review: focused checks, clear categories, author decisions, and honest limits.

Principles

Continuity review should be narrow enough to be useful

A broad AI critique can blur together style, taste, market advice, rewriting, and story logic. Wise Wombat keeps continuity checks focused so authors can review concrete problems.

  • Treat continuity as a set of focused diagnostic checks.
  • Ask for evidence before asking for changes.
  • Separate story logic from generic style critique.
  • Let the author decide whether a finding is real, intentional, or dismissible.
  • Run checks at useful revision moments, not as a substitute for reading.
Checks

Each check asks one kind of story question

The product looks across the manuscript for patterns that are hard to hold in working memory while revising.

Timeline

Do dates, ages, duration, flashbacks, and scene order agree with one another?

Character

Do facts, names, titles, knowledge, motivation, emotion, presence, and voice stay coherent?

References

Do clues, objects, promises, threats, injuries, secrets, and callbacks return or resolve?

Structure and world

Do scenes, POV, cause and effect, pacing, locations, terminology, and world rules stay consistent?

Limits

The author keeps judgment

Continuity analysis is not the same as editorial authority. A good finding should make a useful question visible, not flatten the manuscript into safe choices.

  • A finding is a review prompt, not a command.
  • Some intentional ambiguity may look suspicious until the author reviews it.
  • Human editors and beta readers still matter for taste, emotion, market fit, and lived reading experience.
  • A continuity pass is strongest when the manuscript input is current, complete, and in the intended reading order.