Independent review

Accreditation Management Reviewer receives a validated cycle revision with its criterion evidence and documents. The decision belongs to that exact revision. The reviewer examines the evidence reference, records the reason and chooses Approved, Returned or Rejected. This makes the handoff understandable to the operator who prepared the work and to colleagues reading the history later.

The person who prepared the cycle cannot supply its independent approval. Administrative configuration access also does not replace the reviewer’s decision. The institution should assign a reviewer who can explain the applicable standard and challenge evidence that needs correction before an outcome is delivered.

A pending decision identifies the cycle, source revision and assigned reviewer. Reviewers can work from their own decision queue and inspect the related cycle context in Accreditation Cycles Workspace. The status history shows the earlier handoff, while the evidence strip keeps the underlying observations close to the decision.

• Check the revision. Compare the revision presented for review with the decision record before recording an outcome.
• Explain the decision. Include a reason and evidence reference that another authorized colleague can understand later.
• Return unresolved work. Use Returned or Rejected when the evidence does not support approval, and explain what the operator must address.

Agree the boundary between document verification and cycle approval. A document verifier checks supporting material; Accreditation Management Reviewer decides whether the assembled revision can proceed. Choose who reviews each organization’s cycles and how the team handles a reviewer who also helped prepare the work.

Decide what an adequate decision reason contains. A useful reason points to the reviewed material and explains the unresolved issue or basis for approval. Avoid a generic acknowledgment that leaves the preparation team unable to act. Review access with ordinary staff accounts so decision rights match the people responsible.

A cycle reaches independent review with a criterion observation marked Accepted, but the document reference points to an earlier evidence period. Accreditation Management Reviewer returns the decision with a clear explanation. Accreditation Management Operator investigates the document and prepares the correction for the appropriate revision handoff.

The corrected material requires the reviewer to examine the revision now being presented. The earlier returned decision remains part of the history. Ask the reviewer to show both the original reason and the new evidence reference, then ask the operator to explain which work is ready for delivery.

Also rehearse an attempted approval by the preparation account. That person should be able to see the next task without gaining the reviewer’s authority. A useful queue gives visibility of the pending handoff while preserving the distinction between preparing evidence and authorizing its outcome.

• Pending independent decisions — Review the waiting cycle revision and its supporting decision context.
• My review decisions — Find assigned decisions and revisit their recorded reasons.
• Cycles awaiting validation — See submissions before their independent review handoff.

Review and deliver connects the decision to its outcome. Review permissions before inviting the pilot reviewers.