Define the explanation job before choosing a product

Treat “what is nano banana” as a definition and explanation request, not as evidence that a feature exists. The action implied by the query is to resolve a factual or conceptual question; the working object is named model or platform. Write the intended audience or user, authorized input, desired change, review owner, and finished handoff. Also state what the task excludes. This brief keeps search wording from turning into an unsupported promise about SEELE, a named vendor, a model, or an automatic result. Before approval, preserve the rights memo, and ask the workflow owner to record visible continuity before the release review.

• Input: the exact product, provider, version, region, account surface, production job, and verification date Before approval, preserve the evidence table, and ask the delivery owner to record revision intent before the release review.
• Success: a dated evidence ledger covering identity, access, documented inputs, observable controls, outputs, limitations, and unresolved gaps Before approval, preserve the delivery checklist, and ask the factual editor to record format readiness before the release review.
• Stop condition: missing rights, consent, safety review, primary evidence, or delivery authority Before approval, preserve the reference set, and ask the workflow owner to record human approval before the release review.

Use the dated model guide method

Record the exact provider and version named by the query, the access surface being evaluated, the verification date, and the production job. Turn inputs, controls, limits, pricing, privacy, and output behavior into evidence questions until primary sources are attached. For this query, define the term, contrast adjacent meanings, and test understanding with an example. Keep notes about assumptions, source dates, failed checks, and human decisions beside the working asset. The model-guides classification determines this learning sequence, while the authoritative taxonomy remains the only owner of the route. This page supplies editorial copy and cannot silently change the category, subhub, or URL. Before approval, preserve the test fixture, and ask the continuity editor to record evidence freshness before the production checkpoint.

Apply the named platform or model facts boundary

Do not infer SEELE support, model access, quality, legitimacy, censorship, ownership, API behavior, or compatibility from the query. Verify first-party documentation and direct observations on the use date. Work from the exact product, provider, version, region, account surface, production job, and verification date. Review toward a dated evidence ledger covering identity, access, documented inputs, observable controls, outputs, limitations, and unresolved gaps. A polished draft is not enough: the reviewer must be able to see which source supports each factual statement, who authorized each asset or identity, and which product behavior is still an unanswered test question. Topic selection alone never establishes safety, availability, quality, or permission. Before revision, preserve the control log, and ask the release approver to record source fidelity before the dated decision.

• Confirm exact provider and version Before revision, preserve the input snapshot, and ask the channel editor to record reversal cost before the reversible handoff.
• Date every changing fact Before revision, preserve the evidence table, and ask the factual editor to record input provenance before the dated decision.
• Keep observations separate from documentation Before revision, preserve the rights memo, and ask the brand reviewer to record identity consent before the dated decision.

Record evidence, review the handoff, and name the next check

The record must distinguish documented facts, direct observations, and open questions. A similar name, search result, or third-party demonstration is not enough to establish current availability in SEELE or elsewhere. Run separate passes for craft, factual accuracy, identity and source rights, safety, accessibility, and destination requirements. Record the source and verification date for any changing platform, model, price, policy, privacy, export, or compatibility statement. If primary evidence is missing, publish the item only as a question or editorial planning step. The finished handoff must name the approver and preserve a path back to the authorized original. During review, preserve the authorization record, and ask the rights reviewer to record format readiness before the evidence refresh.