How to Read a Market Review Report

Identify the game and the review-window dates. A report about one selected group of items does not establish movement across the entire catalog.

Check which items were reviewed and which had only automated source checks. The two groups can be different, so the report should distinguish them.

Items checked means distinct covered items, not the number of fetch requests. Items approved means items with relevant approved decisions. Multiple observations for one item should not inflate the number of reviewed items.

An unchanged item needs an actual review decision. It must not be counted merely because its stored baseline has no newer entry.

An approved Adopt Me score change and an approved Brainrot income change measure different things. Do not combine their raw differences into a single market total.

A largest-mover list should state its window and comparison method. A percentage ranking also needs a valid earlier denominator and compatible states.

A conflict can involve identity, variant, unit or conflicting source numbers. Its presence does not establish which source is correct.

A manual-review backlog describes unfinished editorial work. It is not user trading activity and should not be promoted as a popularity or demand measure.

A useful no-change report explains what evidence was examined and what decisions were recorded. If no approved movement occurred, say that directly.

This is narrower than saying the market was stable. A baseline-only catalog has too little observation history to support that conclusion. Do not publish an empty period as if a review happened.

Open a changed or reviewed item's detail page. Match the date, previous state, new state and editorial note to the report summary.

If the commentary introduces a cause that the note does not support, the report needs review. You should be able to reproduce its counts and arithmetic without accepting a general market story.