Independent review

A reviewer decision is linked to a case and its source revision. It records who reviewed, the decision value, date, reason and evidence reference. This separates preparation from approval and lets the team explain a return or rejection after the case has been corrected. The reviewer should see the current requirements, supporting documents and case history before deciding. A prior approval belongs to the revision it covered; it does not silently approve a later edit.

The Land Revenue Reviewer has decision entry access. The operator can prepare the case and read the decision, but the independent reviewer owns approval. The Cases Workspace places pending decisions beside state history and requirements, helping each person see whether the decision concerns the current revision. A returned decision should become a specific correction task for the operator.

• Named reviewer. Every decision points to a person rather than a shared inbox alone.
• Exact revision. The source revision ties the outcome to the submitted case version.
• Reasoned outcome. Approval, return and rejection carry a dated explanation and evidence reference.

Agree which reviewer can decide each service and organization. Decide what evidence is sufficient to approve a request and what reason must accompany a return or rejection. Establish how a reviewer recognizes that a case changed while the decision was pending. Explain who reassigns a decision if the named reviewer is unavailable. Keep preparation and review with different people.

Use an example with a missing document, another with a rejected requirement and one with a case edited after submission. The team should be able to state whether the case needs correction, a new review or a final rejection. A status change alone should never stand in for a review record with a reviewer and reason.

An operator submits a land-related service request after accepting its requirement lines and attaching a verified file. The reviewer finds that the source reference on one line points to an older application and returns the decision with a reason. The operator corrects the line, records the follow-up action and submits the revised case. The reviewer checks the new revision and approves it with an evidence reference. The decision log now explains both the return and the later approval, and the old decision remains tied to the old revision.

Rehearse a preparer trying to approve their own case. The operator’s role should prevent decision entry. Rehearse an approved case edited before delivery; the team should identify the changed revision and seek the right approval again. These checks protect the meaning of the recorded decision.

• Reviewer decision inbox — Pending decisions with their case and source revision.
• Returned decisions — Cases sent back with the reviewer and reason.
• Cases in review — Submitted and verified cases awaiting a decision.

• Independent decision follows approval and return.