Document procedures for reviewing an interview for maintenance/updates

[samglover]

Interviews need maintenance. Our plan is to check live interviews annually, and we have a basic checklist in our recurring task. But we should document the procedures and best practices behind those tasks.

[plocket]

From this issue describing a post MVP task:

...do we have a current plan for adding navigation to existing interviews? As nice as it is, I don't think it's an urgent task. It's more of a recommendation for ongoing maintenance and improvements that we triage. The longest interviews already have it. It's a step on our maturity model. And this issue feels too vague to be a tracking issue.

If we want to prioritize it, it needs to be more actionable first. E.g., with a list of the sections, a model interview, and instructions for a student to follow. We don't need the open issue here to know that having navigation is useful.

This is inspiring me that maybe we need a "chore" type automated task that says "evaluate bringing this form to the next maturity level" that cycles through each form on a regular basis somehow.

I personally dislike the name "chore" because of its connotations. Maybe "maturity"?