Docs
Human review
What an accountable reviewer needs to inspect, question, correct, and decide without being reduced to an approval click.
Human review is not a decorative final step. It is the point where an accountable person examines the source, reasoning, limitations, and uncertainty before assigning meaning.
What reviewers need
A useful review record should make it possible to inspect:
- preserved source material and integrity status;
- source and capture metadata;
- observations and normalized values;
- individual analytical signals and their provenance;
- related public observations where relevant;
- analytical component and version information;
- missing information and uncertainty;
- earlier decisions and correction history.
Disagreement is part of the design
Reviewers must be able to disagree with analytical output, record an unknown or insufficient-data result, explain their rationale, and correct an earlier decision without erasing history.
Review labels do not automatically establish ground truth. Their source, reviewer, time, and scope remain part of the record.
Authority remains external
The software does not grant investigative authority, legal permission, or operational approval. Decisions requiring those powers belong to appropriately qualified and authorized people and organizations.