The act of formalising the competence of the editor is to be seen as an achievement <hi xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" rend="italic">per se</hi>, for it can lead to more accountability and verifiability of the scholarly processes, which can be shared in its complexity with the community. As a matter of fact, such processes are of fundamental importance not only from a methodological perspective, but also for the proper understanding and contextualisation of the presented results. In this respect, Van Zundert (2018) points out how the current digital methods used in scholarly editing, instead, still aim at merely recording the results of the philological work in a representational fashion,<ref xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" n="2" target="ftn2" /> without keeping track of the decisions, analyses and actions that led to those results. In a computational edition, on the other hand, the scholarly competence and actions are not only expressed in a formal language, but they are also operationalised. This, in turn, brings about new affordances, such as the replicability and reusability of the editorial work, as well as the introduction of a degree of indirection allowing for highly controlled modelling of the edition process.