Visible text differences do not all carry the same project consequence
A cosmetic classification should be an explained judgment, not a shortcut that ignores wording changes. Replacing a spelling variant may leave meaning intact, while changing a defined term can alter the covered population even when the visible edit is small. The review should compare the relevant definition and qualifiers, not just edit distance. A useful test pairs a typographical correction with a change from customer to prospective customer in a governing definition. Both may involve few characters but have different scope implications. The record should preserve why the first was treated as non-material and which candidates the second affects. If automated semantic comparison is uncertain, the system can request review rather than revoke every approval or dismiss every small edit. That targeted uncertainty is more informative than a blanket rule based on the size of the textual difference.
Working through the example
A source replaces “client” with “customer” in a heading while leaving its defined meaning unchanged. The system marks every related requirement unapproved. Compare the relevant meaning and qualifiers, preserving the reason for treating the edit as cosmetic. Keep ambiguous terminology changes reviewable.
A discriminating check
Contrast a harmless spelling correction with a change to the customer definition. Automatic semantic comparison can be wrong; sensitive decisions should expose the before-and-after evidence. The change-impact mapping study motivates examining possible consequences of a changed input. It does not authorize automatic edits or establish that every connected project object is invalid.