The two-person rule behind every answer a resident can be shown
Every knowledge answer a resident can be shown passes a two-person rule first: one person submits it, a different person approves it.
A city's own web pages change constantly — opening hours, fee schedules, forms. If an assistant read those pages straight into a live answer, a typo or an out-of-date page would reach a resident exactly as it stands, with nobody in between.
The rule
In Kav, a scheduled crawl of a source can only ever produce a draft. It is never published on its own. A named person in the accountable department has to submit that draft, and a different person has to approve it, before the assistant is allowed to read it back to a resident.
The same rule, reused
This isn't a special case invented for knowledge content — it's the identical two-person discipline the platform already applies to publishing a tax rule or a decision table: one author, one separate approver, every time something a resident can be shown is about to change.
What a resident actually gets
By the time an answer reaches a resident, it traces back to a specific approved article, written and checked by two named people in the city — not to whatever a crawl happened to scrape that morning.
Why this is stricter than it sounds
An assistant that answers straight from a fresh crawl is faster to stand up, and much easier to get subtly wrong — a page rewritten mid-edit, a promotional page mistaken for a policy page. The two-person rule costs a short delay between a source changing and an answer changing. It buys the one guarantee that actually matters: nothing reaches a resident that a person in the city didn't read first.