Skip to main content
GeoFolks

Roles and quality control

See which decisions are automated, which can be approved by a reviewer, and how the system records accountability.

Roles instead of an anonymous promise Methodology in configuration and code Run and report quality control
Visualization for the page: Roles and quality control
Accountability

Roles instead of an anonymous promise

A report, content item, or administrative change can store its author, reviewer, or acting user. The QA workspace separates report preparation from manual approval.

This page does not yet present a complete set of named expert profiles. We therefore do not claim that every decision has a publicly identified owner.

Organisational fact

Methodology in configuration and code

Component definitions, weights, versions, and scoring rules are stored in configuration, services, and run metadata. Code changes leave source-control history.

There is no separate register of named expert approval for every methodology change.

Organisational fact

Run and report quality control

Administrators have views for measurement jobs, provider errors, run statuses, and report QA. A reviewer can approve or reject a report.

Review covers measurement mode, answer completeness, and alignment between evidence and report scope.

Organisational fact

Interpretation requires a person

The platform shows the score, source status, confidence, answers, and limitations. This is decision material.

Automated recommendations are not the same as expert consulting. Human review should show its QA status and reviewer.

Organisational fact

Review only when confirmed

Content models can store author, reviewer, status, and dates, while the admin panel records editorial operations.

Review should be displayed only where that fact is recorded.

Next step

Review the accountability model

See which decisions are automated, which can be approved by a reviewer, and how the system records accountability.