Even when a relationship is stipulated, it may not be clear whether it applies for the whole of a strategy hierarchy or for only some component part. Relationship networks have, therefore, to be built up from several different sources. It is generally easier to criticize errors of commission than to undertake the extra effort to remedy errors of omission. Cross-references are treated more like pointers. During the editorial process pointers may be modified into a more appropriate configuration.
Some pointers are more obvious and permanent than others which are tentative or only approximate.
Clearly all the different forms of cross-reference interweave to form a very complex network. When indicating functional relationships between strategies, the information available may not be sufficiently unambiguous as to whether the pointer should be made to a broader strategy or to one of its narrower strategy. Or the information may only mention the relationship to the narrower strategy, when the context suggests that it could be more appropriately made to the broader. In this sense, whatever link is given can only be considered tentative, subject to modification later in the editorial process. Computer checking The editorial process of checking relationships is both extremely time consuming and subject to error.