A saved research page is a record of what you captured, not a promise that the information remains current. A monthly library review helps you decide which sources to revisit, which notes still support your work and which questions need fresh evidence. This is a manual routine, not an automatic monitoring feature.
Review by decision, not by number of saved pages
Start with one active project. Ask what decision, article or study question the library should help with now. Material that was useful last month may no longer be relevant. Keep historical context if you need it, but label it clearly rather than treating every saved source as equally current.
For example, a training consultant might keep background theory while rechecking a product's current instructions before preparing a workshop. That does not mean rewriting every note each month.
Use a small review log
Keep a plain document alongside your research:
| Source | Why revisit it? | Result of checking the original | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product instructions | Workshop preparation | Current steps differ | Capture the relevant new text |
| Background article | Check an important quotation | Passage still matches | Keep and record the check date |
| Old announcement | Project scope changed | Historical context only | Label as background |
Record “not checked” when you cannot inspect the original. A neat title or AI summary should not be used as evidence of freshness.
Preserve context before replacing anything
Open the original page and compare the passage that matters. If the page changed, decide whether you need the old snapshot, a new capture or both. Use clear titles and tags to distinguish them. Toolkit does not automatically keep web captures synchronized with the source page.
Before removing a source, inspect where you still rely on it. If a note is part of an active project, consider exporting the supported text first. An export is not a complete backup of every original file, media artifact or account setting.
Make repeat questions reusable
Save a prompt such as: “Using only these sources, separate current statements from dated announcements. Cite each statement and list anything whose date is unclear. Do not assume that an old claim is still true.”
Review the resulting answer yourself. Date wording inside a document can be ambiguous, and the absence of an update is not proof that nothing changed.
Keep the routine useful
End with a short next-action list: one source to recapture, one question to investigate and one note to archive if appropriate. Track whether you can find the evidence again, not how many pages you collected.
Use source-readiness checks for new additions and import recovery for failed handoffs. Review privacy before storing sensitive material and plan limits when maintaining a larger cloud library.