A Fiction Continuity Ledger You Can Actually Use

Written by the AZET team; AZET operates azet.io. This is an illustrative guide for reference and creative exploration, not a demonstrated AZET feature.

As of 2026-10-12

A key is locked in a drawer in scene three. In scene five, the same key opens a gate across town. That may be a continuity error, an omitted handoff, or a deliberate mystery. We want the review to show the two passages before suggesting what the writer should change.

This guide uses an original hypothetical manuscript about a night courier named Iona. All scenes, facts, and ledger entries are invented examples. The proposed workflow concerns a writer's own material, and it does not demonstrate manuscript processing by AZET.

Give each fact a location and a kind

A useful ledger row makes a narrow statement. “Iona has a complicated relationship with the city” is too broad to check. “Iona leaves the brass gate key in the station drawer at dusk” can be compared with another scene.

Use a stable scene identifier rather than a page number that moves after every edit. Include the manuscript version, the short supporting passage, when the fact holds in story time, and whose knowledge it represents.

Build a small ledger from the hypothetical scenes

In draft version 3, the supplied source excerpts are:

S03, dusk: Iona locked the brass gate key in the station drawer.
S04, later that evening: Tomas told her, "The river gate is sealed."
S05, midnight: Iona slipped the brass gate key into the river gate lock.
Author note: no retrieval or handoff has been written between S03 and S05.

A compact hypothetical ledger could look like this:

ID	Statement	Kind	Source and time
K01	Iona puts the brass gate key in the drawer	Established fact	v3 S03, dusk
B01	Tomas says the river gate is sealed	Character claim	v3 S04, evening
K02	Iona uses that key at the river gate	Established fact	v3 S05, midnight
Q01	How does Iona regain the key?	Unresolved question	Between S03 and S05

B01 remains a claim. Tomas could be wrong, lying, or using “sealed” in a way the writer has not explained. The ledger should not declare the gate physically impossible to open just because he says so.

The key sequence is also not automatically impossible. Time passes between the scenes. The useful finding is that the supplied manuscript lacks a connecting action, and the writer must decide whether that omission matters.

Ask for conflicts, not repairs disguised as facts

Use a hypothetical prompt with an explicit separation between evidence and proposals:

Compare these excerpts from my hypothetical manuscript, version 3,
with the attached ledger. Report possible continuity issues only.
For each issue: cite scene IDs, quote the relevant supplied words,
identify the missing connection or direct contradiction, and state
what remains uncertain. Separate character claims from narration.
Do not invent an off-page event or revise the manuscript.
Put possible author choices in a separate optional section.

An appropriate authored finding is: “K01 and K02 need review. S03 places the key in the drawer; S05 places it with Iona. No supplied passage describes retrieval. This could be an intentional omission.”

An inappropriate finding is: “Iona retrieves the key in S04.” That fills the gap and then presents the invented repair as evidence. A fluent explanation can hide precisely the problem you wanted to find.

Keep knowledge separate from possession

Objects are only one part of continuity. Make a separate entry when a character learns something that later dialogue depends on. Who saw the key being stored? Who heard Tomas's statement? Does Iona know a gate is closed, or merely believe Tomas?

In this hypothetical draft, only the quoted interaction establishes that Iona hears the claim. Do not grant every character that knowledge because the reader has it. When reviewing a later confrontation, attach the scene where each relevant character learned the information.

Make the author decision visible

Suppose the hypothetical author decides to add a retrieval sentence to S04. Mark it as a proposed revision first. After editing the actual manuscript, update the ledger to version 4 with the new supporting passage.

Review the neighboring scene as well. Does the retrieval require Iona to return to the station when the text places her elsewhere? Fixing an object problem can introduce a travel problem. The ledger gives you a short list of affected facts to inspect.

Keep the old finding marked resolved with a reason. On the next pass, provide the current excerpts and current ledger together. An old chat that remembers version 3 is not a reliable source for version 4.

FAQ

Does every apparent inconsistency need an explanation?

No. Some gaps are deliberate, and some transitions can remain implicit. Mark the writer's decision so a later review does not repeatedly propose an unwanted explanation.

What should I do with an unreliable narrator?

Label narrator assertions separately from facts you intend the story to establish. Use author notes to identify intentional uncertainty without inserting that explanation into the reader's version.

Can I start before the manuscript is finished?

Yes. Begin with the scenes already written and keep planned events in a proposed section. Promote a plan only after it appears in the draft, with a source locator you can check.

In our October 3 maker introduction, we described an email waitlist for the AI assistant. To follow its progress, visit azet.io for the waitlist and current notices, rather than treating this writing exercise as a feature announcement.