A product team of 30 across time zones needs onboarding guides, API notes, and decision logs that non-engineers can edit without code reviews, with version history for audits. Repo README files create merge conflicts. Which solution best creates and updates wikis?

The repository wiki is correct because it provides a dedicated collaborative space separate from code, allowing authorized non-engineers to edit onboarding guides, API notes, and decision logs directly in the browser without opening pull requests, while every save automatically preserves a per-page version history that satisfies audit traceability and avoids the merge conflicts seen with shared README files across time zones. The docs-folder approach with mandatory pull request approval fails on workflow by reintroducing code review bottlenecks for every non-engineer edit, even though versioning and separation from README are sound for engineering docs. The Discussions approach fails on auditability because threads enable open participation without pull requests but provide only conversational edits and comment history, not controlled page versioning needed to reconstruct who changed what policy when. The Pages-site approach fails on direct editability because a published static site offers searchability and git-backed source history yet still requires Markdown commits, builds, and typically pull request reviews to update content, so non-engineers cannot make immediate wiki-style corrections. For the exam, remember that wikis imply direct browser editing plus automatic versioning without pull requests, while docs folders and Pages imply git workflow and Discussions imply Q&A rather than versioned documentation. In practice, verify by checking repository Settings for wiki enablement, confirming editor permissions for non-engineers, and opening Page History to demonstrate audit recovery before migrating guides off README.