Independent Review

The Citizen Service Portal Reviewer receives a Pending decision for a particular application revision. That revision connects the decision to the requirements and evidence prepared for review. Before deciding, the reviewer checks the application identity and confirms that the work was prepared by someone else. Reviewing a familiar beneficiary does not remove the need to inspect the current request.

The decision can be Approved, Returned or Rejected. Record the reason in terms the operator can act on, and retain the evidence reference used in reaching it. A Returned decision should explain the correction needed. A Rejected decision should explain the basis for rejection. These decision outcomes remain attached to the application without erasing earlier review work.

• Assigned review. The pending decision identifies the reviewer and source revision. The reviewer reads the application and supporting material through the same case context before recording a result.
• Independent authority. The Citizen Service Portal Operator prepares the case and can read its review progress. The Citizen Service Portal Reviewer records the decision; the preparer cannot provide their own independent approval.
• Decision history. Keep the decision time, reason and evidence reference with the revision reviewed. Later corrections receive their own review so a previous approval cannot silently stand for changed evidence.

Name the reviewers for the pilot service and decide who covers an absence while preserving independence from preparation. Give reviewers the evidence they need within the organization’s permitted scope. Confirm that an operator can inspect a Pending decision without gaining permission to approve it.

Agree what makes a return reason actionable. For example, a reviewer asking for a corrected document should identify the requirement being questioned and the evidence that needs attention. The operator can then assign a follow-up and prepare the correction. Do not make the reviewer edit the application to resolve their own concern; preserve the separation between preparation and decision.

Use an application for a community program with accepted requirements and verified evidence. The reviewer checks the revision and approves it with a reason. The operator then follows the authorized decision and delivery process. Inspect the recorded decision afterward to confirm its reviewer, timestamp and evidence reference are understandable without a separate message.

Run the case again with an incorrect attachment. The reviewer returns the decision with a specific explanation. The operator corrects the preparation, and the changed revision comes back for a fresh decision. Finally, try assigning the review to the person who prepared the application. The rehearsal should stop that person from supplying the independent approval. A visible queue alone must never be treated as permission to decide.

• Pending Review Decisions — Open decisions awaiting review and inspect the application revision they concern.
• Decision Register — Read completed decisions with their reviewer, reason and decision time.

Read requirements and approval, then follow decision and delivery.