Independent review

A review decision points to an impact program and records its source revision, reviewer, decision, decision date, reason and evidence reference. Pending, approved, returned and rejected are distinct outcomes. A returned revision gives the operator a path to correct the package; a rejected one records a different conclusion. The decision belongs to the specific revision, so a later edit should be reviewed as a later version.

The Impact Programs Workspace shows pending review decisions beside the selected program’s observations and state history. A reviewer can inspect the organization, goal, evidence and follow-up actions before deciding. The person who prepared the work should not be the person who approves it. The reviewer role has entry access to decisions and read access to the records needed for the judgment.

• Revision-bound decision. Record the version considered, not only the current program number.
• Independent reviewer. Keep the decision with its named reviewer and reason.
• Visible return. A returned case remains understandable to the operator who must correct it.

Operators prepare the package and respond to returns. Reviewers decide. Analysts can read decisions and the published result without editing either record.

Agree which evidence is sufficient for each goal and who can review programs from each organization. Define the meaning of returned versus rejected for the team. Decide how reviewers handle a revision that changed after they opened it. Keep the source revision on the decision and test a stale decision before the process is used on live outcomes.

Prepare one program with two observations and one verified document. Have an independent reviewer approve it with an evidence reference. Then edit the program and confirm that the prior decision still points to the earlier revision. Rehearse a returned case with a specific reason and a correction action. These cases make the distinction between a decision and a current status clear.

An operator validates a program after checking the observation lines and supporting document. The reviewer opens the case, compares the goal with the observations and finds that one source identifier points to a different reporting period. The reviewer returns that revision, citing the evidence reference and reason. The operator assigns a follow-up action, obtains the corrected source and updates the package. The next decision is recorded against the new revision, preserving the earlier return.

Once a reviewer approves the corrected version, the program can move to reviewed and then published. The decision history still explains why the first version was not accepted. An analyst reading the result can inspect the approved source revision instead of assuming that the most recent attachment was the one originally reviewed.

• Pending review decisions — Revision-specific decisions awaiting the reviewer.
• Review decision history — Approved, returned and rejected decisions with the reviewer and reason.
• Programs ready for review — Validated programs and their current revision.

Review the revision covers the human decision. Reconcile execution covers later uncertainty without rewriting that decision.