Repeated punctuation
Decide whether repetition is voice, notation or an editing artifact.
Understand the principle
Repeated marks can be an accidental duplication, a deliberate expressive choice or specialist notation. Their visual intensity alone does not establish an error. An editorial decision needs the surrounding voice and publication style.
Look in Typography. The publication concept and a plugin issue identifier are related, but are not interchangeable.
Compare the intent, not only the characters
Really!!
Really! · only if the repetition was accidental
Schematic teaching example, not a plugin screenshot or a promise of automatic correction.
Review it in Avellio 2.0
Read the full passage and compare nearby comparable copy. Preserve quoted source meaning. If a correction is justified, change the occurrence deliberately and inspect it again. Read Found and Suggested when offered, or Review in context. Check Text locale; the recommendation itself changes no text. After an intentional manual edit, inspect again.
Use the selected finding’s actual evidence and offered actions. If no suitable supported action exists, make a justified manual decision in InDesign or retain the occurrence. After an edit, inspect again and check nearby composition.
Read the plugin recommendation
Check whether the repeated punctuation is intentional before removing it.
Read-only advice: verify meaning and locale, edit deliberately when justified, then inspect again.
When the difference can be intentional
Dialogue, expressive writing, quoted material and code can retain repeated punctuation.
What should I verify after deciding?
Preserve meaning and the intended design. If you edited the document, obtain fresh results for the intended scope and policy. If you kept the occurrence, record a supported review decision when useful. A smaller filtered count is not proof of a repair.