Skip to content

Commit 75bd678

Browse files
authored
docs: add review cycle guide
1 parent b24aeb6 commit 75bd678

1 file changed

Lines changed: 51 additions & 0 deletions

File tree

‎docs/CLAIM-REVIEW-CYCLE.md‎

Lines changed: 51 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
1+
# Claim Review Cycle
2+
3+
Open Problem Lab should not treat accepted claims as permanently current.
4+
5+
This guide defines a simple review cycle for claims whose usefulness can decay over time because the evidence base, field setting, policy environment, dataset, or implementation context changes.
6+
7+
## Why this matters
8+
9+
A claim can be correct at merge time and misleading later.
10+
11+
The repository needs a visible way to say when a claim should be rechecked, refreshed, bounded, or archived. This is especially important for claims used in prioritization or field-facing decisions.
12+
13+
## Minimum review-cycle note
14+
15+
```markdown
16+
## Claim review cycle
17+
18+
**Claim:** Link to claim, evidence record, issue, or PR.
19+
20+
**Current status:** accepted | bounded | disputed | field-pending | replication-pending | archived.
21+
22+
**Review cadence:** on challenge | 6 months | 12 months | 24 months | event-triggered.
23+
24+
**Why this cadence:** One sentence.
25+
26+
**Refresh trigger:** Source update, dataset release, policy change, field report, replication result, or reviewer concern.
27+
28+
**Owner:** maintainer | reviewer | agent | generated index | external source.
29+
30+
**Action if overdue:** recheck | mark bounded | mark field-pending | archive | open issue.
31+
```
32+
33+
## Cadence guidance
34+
35+
- Use `on challenge` for stable background claims.
36+
- Use `24 months` for slow-changing structural facts.
37+
- Use `12 months` for program status, burden estimates, or institutional context.
38+
- Use `6 months` for claims tied to fast-moving operating environments.
39+
- Use `event-triggered` when a known update source controls freshness.
40+
41+
## Reviewer guidance
42+
43+
Reviewers should ask for a review cycle when a claim is likely to become stale but is being used as durable support.
44+
45+
## Agent guidance
46+
47+
Agents should not reuse an accepted claim without checking whether its review cycle is overdue.
48+
49+
## Acceptance test
50+
51+
A review cycle is adequate when a future contributor can answer when the claim should be checked again and what to do if it is overdue.

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)