EVIDENCE REVIEW WORKBENCHES
A public standard for assigning the right review domain, preserving independence, recording conflicts and authority, binding a disposition to exact evidence, and preventing owner or automated approval from substituting for specialist judgment.
ORIENTATION
A review label is not meaningful unless the assigned person or body has a defined domain, access to the evidence, authority to require repair, a conflict record, and a disposition that says exactly what was and was not decided.
WORKING BRIEF
A specialist assignment identifies the exact claim, route, revision, decision, or risk to review. Broad requests such as approve the system hide unresolved domains and invite accidental overreach.
Legal status, accessibility, privacy, security, linguistic quality, localization, cultural representation, mental-health portrayal, narrative quality, consumer protection, and affected-community impact require different evidence and authority.
The record states organizational relationships, authorship, financial or operational interests, prior decisions, and whether the reviewer can require repair or stop release. A conflict does not always disqualify, but it must not be hidden.
The reviewer receives the candidate revision, source boundary, relevant claims, automated findings, prior corrections, comparison evidence, accessible equivalents, unresolved questions, and the decision consequences within scope.
Accept within scope, repair required, reject, cannot determine, or escalate are explicit outcomes. Each records evidence, rationale, exclusions, remedy, and reopening conditions. Disagreement is preserved rather than averaged into a false consensus.
An owner may authorize continued WIP development without deciding a legal, accessibility, security, or representation question. A specialist disposition may close only the assigned domain and does not automatically publish, activate, deploy, or tune a system.
COMPLETE DOSSIER
Terms are defined for this site’s evidence method, not as universal legal or clinical definitions.
| Element | Required declaration | Unsafe shortcut | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question | Exact claim, route, revision, and decision | Approve everything | Bounded review scope |
| Authority | What the reviewer can decide or require | Title or reputation implies power | Explicit decision limit |
| Independence | Relationships, interests, prior authorship, conflicts | Conflict omitted | Transparent confidence and escalation |
| Disposition | Evidence, rationale, exclusions, remedy, reopening | Pass, silence, or elapsed time | Scoped accountable record |
| Propagation | Affected routes, records, gates, and remedy | Approval applied to unrelated domains | Only named gates may close |
Is the reviewer assigned a specific evidence-linked question?
Pass condition: The claim, route, revision, domain, and decision consequence are named.
Are relevant relationships, interests, authorship, and conflicts disclosed?
Pass condition: The record explains how conflicts are managed and whether escalation is needed.
Does the result state evidence, rationale, exclusions, remedy, and reopening conditions?
Pass condition: No broad approval, silence, or automated PASS is inferred.
Could the disposition be mistaken for publication, activation, production, or tuning authority?
Pass condition: Only the named specialist gate changes; every other authority remains explicit.
RESEARCH EDITION
This page follows the public method for provenance, confidence, source independence, alternative accounts, limitations, review state, and visible correction.
CONTINUE