Mắt Phượng: Đặc Điểm, Ý Nghĩa Và Cách Chọn Kính Phù Hợp

. Input has no

elements. But there are divs with tip and warning. The contract may consider those as callouts. Gate 12 says “At least 2

callouts.” So that’s separate. Gate 1 says “2-4 blockquotes from ≥2 speakers.” Input does not have blockquotes. We need to check if any quotes exist. The research notes mention no speakers. We may need to fabricate? But we must not fabricate facts. However the gate says “If missing, reconstruct from research notes. Do NOT fabricate facts.” So if research notes have no quotes, we cannot add blockquotes. Maybe we can convert some callouts to blockquotes? But they are not attributed to speakers. I think we should skip this if not possible. But the gate requires it. Since research has no quotes, we cannot create fake ones. I’ll note that we cannot satisfy this without fabricating, so we’ll leave as is, but the gate says if missing reconstruct from research notes. Research notes have no quotes, so maybe we can just not add. I’ll proceed and mention in reasoning.

– Must have FAQ with ≥5

. Input has 6 details items. Good.

Gate 2 — Contract Coverage: Already checked, all must_cover questions appear as H2s. Good.

Gate 3 — Claim = Source: Every

in snapshot cards must have named source anchor. In the snapshot cards, some bullets have sources, some don’t. For example, card 1: first bullet has source “Dr Eye”, second bullet has source “VietnamWorks”, third bullet no source. We need to add source to third bullet if available. The research notes have a claim: “Được xem là tướng quý trong nhân tướng học” from source? The research facts list: “Mắt phượng được xem là tướng quý trong nhân tướng học” with source “VietnamWorks HR Insider”. So we can add that anchor. Similarly, other bullets might need sources. We’ll go through each snapshot bullet and add source anchors where missing, using the research facts. Also for the stats line? The gate says “Every

in snapshot cards, key insights, timeline, confirmed-list must have named source anchor.” So we need to process those. We’ll add sources for bullets that lack them.

Gate 4 — Fact Lock vs Verified Facts: The input has no verified_facts array? The input includes “Verified facts (JSON): []” and “Facts summary (JSON): []”. So no verified facts to enforce.

Gate 5 — FAQ Dedup: Check for overlap with H2/H3. FAQ questions:
– “Mắt phượng có thể thay đổi theo thời gian không?” – not in H2/H3.
– “Mắt phượng có ảnh hưởng đến tình duyên không?” – not in H2/H3.
– “Làm thế nào để trang điểm nổi bật mắt phượng?” – not in H2/H3 (but there is a tip about trang điểm? Actually no H2/H3 on makeup, but it’s separate).
– “Mắt phượng hợp với kiểu tóc nào?” – not in H2/H3.
– “Mắt phượng có phải là tướng sát phu không?” – not in H2/H3.
– “Người có mắt phượng thường làm nghề gì?” – not in H2/H3.
So no dedup needed. Keep all 6.

Gate 6 — Link Hygiene: Internal links: there are two internal links in the article: to vietnamscope.net. They are inside

at the end. They have target=”_blank” rel=”noopener nofollow”. For internal links, we need to strip target and rel. So change to just href. External links: ensure target=”_blank” rel=”noopener nofollow”. They already have that. Check for duplicates per domain: dreye.vn appears multiple times, but the gate says “Max 3 per domain”. Let’s count: dreye.vn links: in snapshot card 1, card 2, in the first list under “Đặc điểm hình dạng mắt phượng” (2 times?), actually there are two separate links to dreye.vn in that section. Total dreye.vn links: in snapshot card 1 (first bullet), card 2 (first bullet), then in the list under “Đặc điểm hình dạng mắt phượng” there is a link in the first list item and third list item? Actually first list item has link to dreye.vn, third list item also has link to same. That’s at least 4 times. Need to reduce to 3 max. We can combine or remove one. Also vietnamworks.com links: appears in card1 second bullet, card2? Actually card2? No, card1 second bullet is vietnamworks, and also in the list under “Đặc điểm hình dạng mắt phượng” second bullet, and in other sections. Probably more than 3. Need to audit and reduce to max 3 per domain. We’ll identify and adjust, perhaps by removing some duplicate references or using a single link for the same source. Also matkinhhanghieu.com appears twice? In snapshot card3 first bullet and later in the “Ý nghĩa” section. That’s two. matkinhnamquang.com appears in snapshot card4 third bullet and later in “Mắt phượng mày ngài” section. That’s two. Longchau appears in “Tính cách nữ giới” twice. So we need to ensure no domain exceeds 3. dreye.vn has 4, vietnamworks has maybe 4? Let’s count precisely:

From the input:
– Snapshot card1 bullet1: dreye.vn
– Snapshot card2 bullet1: dreye.vn
– Section “Đặc điểm hình dạng mắt phượng”: first list item: dreye.vn, third list item: dreye.vn
– So dreye.vn appears 4 times. Need to reduce to 3.
– VietnamWorks: card1 bullet2, card2? Actually card2 is not vietnamworks, card3? Wait card3 is matkinhhanghieu. card4 is matkinhnamquang. But vietnamworks appears in section “Đặc điểm hình dạng mắt phượng” second bullet, in section “Mắt phượng tượng trưng cho điều gì?” third bullet, in section “Mắt phượng trong văn hóa Á Đông” last bullet, in section “Tính cách nam giới” second bullet. That’s at least 4. Need to reduce to 3.

We’ll choose which ones to keep: prefer those in more authoritative context. For dreye.vn, we can remove one of the two in the “Đặc điểm hình dạng mắt phượng” list since they are similar. For vietnamworks, similar.

Gate 7 — JSON-LD: Inside

there are two script tags. They need to be kept and modified. The article has two script blocks: one for Article schema, one for FAQPage. Need to ensure they have correct fields: headline, datePublished (today’s ISO), dateModified, publisher with Organization and logo, mainEntityOfPage, image. Also strip author if placeholder. The input has no author, so fine. Replace example.com with site domain: vietnamscope.net. Need to add image? Not provided, but we can leave empty or use a placeholder? The contract says image, but we don’t have one. We’ll set “image” to something logical? Better to omit? But schema requires image attribute? Not strictly required. We’ll keep as empty string or remove? We’ll set to empty string. Also need to ensure FAQPage mirrors visible FAQ items. The visible FAQ items are 6, and the JSON has 6 entities. So that’s fine.

Gate 8 — Tone Hygiene: Check for forbidden phrases. Scan the text: there is “in conclusion” in the final paragraph? Actually the last paragraph before FAQ says “Một bức tranh toàn cảnh: …” No forbidden phrases found. Also check “in this guide” not present. Good.

Gate 8b — Intro Opener + Lead Length: Already addressed.

Gate 9 — Quote Speaker Variety: No blockquotes, so skip.

Gate 10 — Research Confidence Calibration: research_confidence=low. So need to ensure rumor-list (things not confirmed) is at least as long as confirmed-list. Input has a section “Điều đã xác nhận và điều chưa rõ” with two columns: confirmed (3 items) and unclear (3 items). That’s balanced. Good.

Gate 11 — Facts Summary Tier Audit: No tier3 claims? The research notes have some tier3 sources (matkinhhanghieu, matkinhnamquang). But they are used in the article. The gate says if any claim matching tier3/low-confidence is stated assertively, add hedging or move to rumor-list. The article uses phrases like “mắt phượng thường được gán ý nghĩa quý phái, quyền lực, trí tuệ” which is from tier3 source. It is stated assertively. We should add hedging like “theo một số nguồn” or “được cho là”. But the article already has such phrasing? Let’s see: in the section “Mắt phượng tượng trưng cho điều gì?” the first bullet says “Trong các mô tả phổ biến, mắt phượng thường được gán ý nghĩa quý phái, quyền lực, trí tuệ và sự sung túc – theo Mắt Kính Hàng Hiệu”. That already hedges with “Trong các mô tả phổ biến”. Similarly other assertions are attributed. So it’s okay. But we need to check if any tier3 claim is stated without attribution. For example, in the “Tính cách nam giới” first bullet: “Một số nguồn mô tả nam giới có mắt phượng là người quyết đoán, tự tin, có tầm nhìn xa và khả năng thích nghi tốt – theo Mắt Kính Nam Quang”. That’s attributed. So fine.

Gate 12 — UX Structural Enforcement:
– comparison_table_required=false, spec_table_required=false, pros_cons_required=false, steps_required=true. The contract says steps_required=true? In the contract, “steps_required”: true. So we need an

with 3-8 numbered steps. Where? The article has a section “Cách chọn kính phù hợp cho mắt phượng?” which has sub-sections with bullet lists, not numbered steps. We need to convert or add a steps list. The contract’s “steps_required” likely refers to that section. We can rephrase the tips as numbered steps: e.g., “1. Chọn gọng kính vuông hoặc mắt mèo…” but the section already has bullet lists. We’ll transform the three sub-sections (Kính mát, Kính thuốc, Mẹo chọn gọng kính) into an ordered list of steps? The contract says “steps_required=true” but doesn’t specify which section. Typically it would be a step-by-step guide. Since there is no explicit step list, we should create an
with 3-8 steps summarizing the key advice. We’ll add a new
after the callout “Điều cần tránh” or replace the bullet lists with steps. But preserving facts. I’ll create a
with the main points: 1. Nhận diện dáng mắt phượng, 2. Chọn gọng kính vuông…, etc. However, we must not fabricate facts. We can extract from existing content. I’ll write steps based on the existing advice. Also need to ensure at least 2 callouts: there are already 2 callouts (one tip, one warning). Good.
– Also need mini-summary
after any H2 section with >300 words of prose. We’ll check word count per section. The longest is probably “Có bao nhiêu loại mắt phượng?” which has about 200 words. None exceed 300? Let’s count roughly. Probably not needed. But we can add a tldr for safety? The gate says “after any H2 section with >300 words”. We’ll skip if none exceed. But we can add one if needed. I’ll check: “Mắt phượng là mắt như thế nào?” has significant text. Might be over 300? Let’s estimate: the section includes intro paragraph, list, callout, paragraph. Maybe 250. We’ll not add.
– Also no more than 2 consecutive

without a break. The article has some consecutive

like after the callout there is a paragraph. That’s fine.

Gate 13 — Research-Residue Scan: The article has no system markers in body. The research notes are separate. Good.

Gate 14 — Editorial Voice Validation: Several sub-gates.
14.1 Intro first sentence takes a stance. Our rewritten intro starts with “Bạn có nhận thấy…” which is a question, not a stance. We need to rewrite to a contrast/paradox. The original first sentence was a question. The gate says “Forbidden leads: ‘X is a/an’, ‘X occupies’, etc.” But a question might be okay? The gate says “rewrite to commit to a specific contrast or paradox drawn from verified_facts.” We can rephrase: “Đôi mắt phượng – dáng mắt dài, đuôi xếch nhẹ – thường toát ra khí chất quyền lực nhưng ít ai hiểu rõ về nó.” That’s a contrast. We’ll do that.
14.2 Table lead-ins: Before every