Server 2025 added

[Billy-VanCannon]

Server 20254 added

[github-actions]

Documentation PR Review

Editorial Review

docs/privilegesecure/26.03/requirements/applicationserver.md

• Clarity — Line 14: "NPS server" is introduced without definition. NPS is an undefined acronym (likely Network Policy Server, but the reader has no way to confirm) and this is its first and only appearance in the document. Per Netwrix style, acronyms must be spelled out on first use. Suggested fix: spell out the acronym on first use, e.g., "The Network Policy Server (NPS) should be non-domain-joined for additional security."
• Completeness — Line 14: The admonition sits inside the Application Server requirements list, but the new wording shifts the subject from "the application server" to "the NPS server" without explaining the relationship between them. The reader is left wondering whether the NPS server is the application server, a sub-component, or a separate machine — and why an NPS-specific note belongs in this section at all. Suggested fix: clarify the relationship, e.g., "The Privilege Secure application server should be non-domain-joined for additional security," or, if NPS is intentionally a separate component, introduce it earlier in the section and explain when it applies.
• Structure — Line 14: If the note is meant to apply specifically to NPS (rather than the application server generally), its placement directly under the Windows Server version bullet is misleading — readers will read it as a constraint on the application server. Suggested fix: move the note to a section that establishes the NPS role, or rewrite it to apply unambiguously to the application server described in this file.

Summary

3 editorial suggestions across 1 file. Vale and Dale issues are auto-fixed separately.

---

What to do next:

Comment @claude on this PR followed by your instructions to get help:

• @claude fix all issues — fix all editorial issues
• @claude help improve the flow of this document — get writing assistance
• @claude explain the voice issues — understand why something was flagged

You can ask Claude anything about the review or about Netwrix writing standards.

Automated fixes are only available for branches in this repository, not forks.

[github-actions]

Auto-Fix Summary

9 issues fixed, 2 skipped across 1 files

Category	Fixes
Dale: passive-voice	7
Dale: undefined-acronyms	1
Dale: wordiness	1

Skipped (needs manual review)	Reason

| docs/privilegesecure/26.03/requirements/applicationserver.md:58 — Dale: passive-voice | 'The account used must have Domain Admin privileges' — 'used' may indicate a specific account for AD sync; rewriting risks changing meaning |
| docs/privilegesecure/26.03/requirements/applicationserver.md:9 — Dale: wordiness | 'The requirements for the (Privilege Secure) application server are:' uses an unusual parenthetical that may be intentional; rewriting could remove author-intended emphasis |

Ask @claude on this PR if you'd like an explanation of any fix.