Bounded and consented
The public record exposes only fields explicitly authorized. Private contact and verification material stays non-public.
Workflow specification · source cutoff 2026-07-23T20:01:27Z · WIP
The workflow separates reviewer identity, qualification, language, conflicts, consent, claim response, source verification, editorial adjudication, and publication effect. Missing evidence remains null and blocks publication.
Direct answer
Anyone with relevant professional, institutional, legal, linguistic, lived, local, or affected-community knowledge may submit evidence. The relationship and scope must be described. No identity category automatically proves expertise, representativeness, credibility, or public opinion.
01 · reviewer provenance
A reviewer records an attributable identity, consented pseudonym, or confidential/non-public identity state; relevant qualifications or lived experience; institutional role; local or affected-community relationship; and a private verification route where necessary.
The public record exposes only fields explicitly authorized. Private contact and verification material stays non-public.
Relevant experience is stated in words. The workflow does not create reviewer-worth or community-credibility scores.
One reviewer cannot represent an entire country, institution, language community, affected population, or public opinion.
02 · language, conflicts, and consent
Consent to participate is not permission to quote, paraphrase, attribute, retain, publish anonymously, or publish at all.
Record language competence, translation or interpretation used, who supplied it, machine assistance, and accessibility accommodations. Do not infer competence from nationality or name.
Record financial, institutional, political, advocacy, and other material relationships. A conflict is disclosed and handled; it is not converted into an automatic credibility score.
Attributable, pseudonymous, confidential, and non-public states are supported. Do not expose contact details, precise location, employer details, immigration status, protected characteristics, or other sensitive data without explicit permission.
03 · claim response
Each response is claim-level and records the reviewer’s statement, rationale, supporting source or experience, confidence, requested wording, and correction or withdrawal request.
Cited public records can be source-verified separately. Verification does not endorse the reviewer’s conclusion.
Lived or affected-community experience is preserved as the reviewer’s evidence and scope, not representative public opinion.
A model may validate structure, compare supplied text, identify inconsistencies, and draft questions. It may not fill reviewer fields, infer consent, or certify expertise.
04 · editorial decision
An accountable adjudicator records the evidence considered, decision, rationale, wording effect, publication effect, and appeal or correction route. Disagreement remains visible rather than being collapsed into a fabricated consensus.
Accept · accept with qualification · reject · request more evidence · withdraw · supersede.
Prior claims, reviews, sources, corrections, and decisions remain addressable.
Every decision exposes a correction or appeal route and a dated state.
All sixty adjudication slots are not performed.
05 · publication effect
A record cannot become publishable while required provenance, language, conflicts, consent, evidence, safety, source-verification, or adjudication fields are incomplete.
Means only that a record is internally reviewable.
Factual correctness, legal validity, local acceptance, representative public opinion, political neutrality, consultation, consent outside the recorded scope, or approval for publication.
06 · continuing rights
Withdrawal, correction, and deletion requests receive dated records. Private personal data may be removed according to the request and applicable obligations, while public history receives a visible withdrawal or correction notice rather than silent rewriting.