Poorly Structured Review Editing Logic

1) all edits of approved reviews require a resubmission for analysis (which is expected - but should be optimized) 

2) edits to submitted pre-approved reviews should update the current submission in the queue, without creating a new queue entry 

3) there should be an edit action within the Contribution History tab

4) "duplication" detector is extremely low-resolution; a single new whitespace should be detected as a unique version - yet entire new paragraphs are misdetected as duplicates of the original, and auto-declined;

expression changes with slightest alteration (just like an altered note redefines a melody, a single new link redefines a kinematic chain) and users shouldn't be denied of it in any form 

5) overall handling of editing should be optimized - editing is expected user behavior; it is applied to codebases and constitutions and even surgically to human brain matter; the process must be simple and smooth across its entirety.

-review analysis should be trackable (queue position,) 

-prioritization logic should be public, and debatable (since it's defined as non-chronological) 

-declines should be directly appealable

-longform reasoning should be expressed in event of decline 

-whether human analysts or AI models; concise direct debates must be possible against any outcomes; load-handling should be optimized for full feedback as valid counteranalysis, not cyberdespotic unappealable red stamps of decline 

if murder convictions are appealable, so too can review analyses be appealed

it's not a true democracy if it does not entail metademocracy