A Clue-Ambiguity Report That Does Not Reveal the Whole Solution

Solvers sometimes believe a crossword clue has more than one valid answer. A publisher wants to hear about it, but a message like "clue 14 is wrong, here is my full grid" is hard to check and can spoil the puzzle for others if shared. This article proposes a clue-ambiguity report as an example workflow. It is a suggestion, not a record of how any publisher performed, and publishers should adapt it to their own puzzles.

The report records only what the editor needs: which edition, which clue, the letters that cross it, and the alternative answer the solver proposes. It deliberately avoids requesting the complete solution.

Inputs

Edition: the title or date of the puzzle exactly as printed, plus the format (print, digital, collection book).
Clue identifier: the number and direction as printed, and the clue text copied exactly.
Answer length as shown by the grid (the number of squares).
Crossing letters: for each square the solver considers settled, its position in the answer (first, second and so on) and the letter. Letters the solver is unsure about are marked as unsure.
The proposed alternative answer, and one sentence on why it fits the clue.
The answer the solver believes is intended, if known, or "not sure."

The form does not ask for other answers in the grid, nor for a photograph of the filled puzzle.

Decision branches for the editor

The editor checks reports in this order.

Is the edition and clue identifiable? If not, reply with a question about the edition. Nothing else happens yet.
Does the proposed alternative fit the length and the settled crossing letters? If it does not fit, reply politely that it conflicts with the crossing letters and explain which one. Close the report.
Does it fit the length, the crossings and the clue text? Mark the report "possible ambiguity" and compare it with the editor's own notes.
Do other clues cross the changed letters? If the alternative would require a different letter in a crossing answer that is itself clear, the ambiguity is likely resolved by the crossing. Note this in the reply.

Stop conditions

Stop and do not alter anything when the report would require revealing or checking the full solution in public, when the crossing letters supplied are all marked unsure, or when the edition cannot be identified. Ask for the missing item first. A decision to correct, annotate or leave a puzzle is the publisher's own; the report only supports it.

Example (proposed, illustrative)

A solver writes: Edition: a weekly puzzle, digital. Clue 7 across, five squares, text copied. Settled crossings: second letter A, fourth letter E. Proposed answer: a word that fits the clue loosely. The editor's reply notes that the intended answer also fits both crossings, and that the solver's proposal fits the clue text in a second sense. The report is marked "possible ambiguity" and passed to whoever handles corrections. The solver is thanked and told nothing further about the full grid.

What the report avoids

It does not ask the solver to prove anything about the rest of the puzzle, and it does not publish the intended answer in the reply when the puzzle is still being solved by others. Replies should be short and neutral.

Practical acceptance test

Take three past clues that you know are clean and one that you suspect was ambiguous.

Write mock reports for each using only the form's fields.
Hand them to a colleague who has not seen the grid.
Ask them to decide, for each, whether it is an ambiguity, a conflict or a missing detail.

Pass if the colleague separates the suspected ambiguity from the three clean clues using only the reports, and none of the reports needed the full grid. Fail if they needed the grid to decide; then add a field for the missing piece, such as a count of crossing letters. Repeat with fresh examples.

Conclusion

A clue-ambiguity report works because it is small: edition, clue, length, crossing letters and one alternative. Which extra fields to add, and how to word replies, is a choice for each publisher. The part worth keeping is the discipline of checking an alternative against crossings before opening the full solution.