Public governance record
Stewards · Contests · Revocation

How reviewer independence is governed. And how contests work.

Anyone reading a Degree of Proof should be able to check who decides the credential, how they are paid, and how a challenge to the credential proceeds. This page is that record: reviewer qualifications, panel composition, recusal, compensation, decision thresholds, contest standing, evidentiary bars, public vs. private surfaces, and what a revocation does to the registry.

What the submission fee pays for

Submission fee for independent claim review.

The submission fee funds independent claim review; it does not purchase approval or a credential.

$50 funds independent claim review; it does not purchase approval or a credential.

Submission fee for independent claim review.

  • Independent review — the live router selects the General or Specialist route based on available conflict-free expertise.
  • Steward compensation — paid per claim on a fixed cadence, regardless of the claim's verdict.
  • Evidence handling — files held under steward-panel custody, not surfaced on the public ledger.
  • Platform operations — intake reply within two business days, routing to the panel, and the operating costs of running the platform.
  • Permanent verification record — every state change captured with date and reason in the audit log.

Payment is for review, not for approval.

The submission fee funds independent claim review; it does not purchase approval or a credential.

Steward privacy & qualification contract

What reviewers see, what they don't, and what gates the cohort.

The four points below apply on every Degree of Proof reviewed under the Genesis Protocol — and on every Degree reviewed once ordinary Stewards are operating. They are the single canonical framing for /governance and /founding-stewards.

01Evidence reviewers see

What the panel reads.

Reviewers read the claim packet — the skill statement, the artifacts, any expert affidavit, and any prior reviewer notes — on the packet's own signal. The claimant's name is not what the panel weighs; the artifacts are.

  • The submitted claim and the artifact bundle — work orders, employer statements, recorded test runs, expert affidavits, uncut footage, third-party test records. The panel reads the evidence on its own signal.
  • Any revised claim that comes back through the resubmit flow, with the prior decision visible on the audit trail. The panel reads what changed, not just the new packet.
  • The audit trail for the same claim — prior reviewer notes, revision requests, the panel's earlier verdict. The audit trail is what the next panel reads, alongside the claim itself.
02What reviewers do not see

Claimant identity is protected.

Reviewers do not see claimant identity as a weight in the verdict. The audit log binds the verdict to a known reviewer, never to control whose identity crossed whose desk — that line is the structural guard, not a courtesy.

  • Claimant identity is not a weight in the verdict. The verdict is recorded against the audit log, not against the claimant's record; the panel's read stands on the artifacts.
  • Individual reviewer identities remain private. Public verification may show the panel count and other aggregate panel metadata, plus recorded recusal events; it does not publish named reviewers.
  • Contestant identity stays private unless the contestant consents in writing. The credential holder is told the basis, not the contestant; the platform does not unilaterally release a public summary.
03Qualifications honored

Standing in the pool — not a credential we mint on the candidate's record.

General Stewards provide independent evidence review. Specialists provide subject-matter expertise where the Specialist route applies. Conflict disclosure and recusal keep every assignment independent.

  • Subject-matter expertise is used where the Specialist route applies; General Stewards independently review evidence.
  • No employer, claimant, or downstream-verifier tie. Reviewers do not work for the claimant, the employer, or any downstream verifier; intake filters out conflicts of interest at the panel level.
  • Governance acceptance and recusal on conflict. Each reviewer has agreed to operate under /governance and to recuse on a current or recent conflict — the recusal is itself an entry on the audit log.
04Compensation is not tied to approval

Payment is for adjudication. Not for outcomes.

General reviews pay $2 and Specialist reviews pay $8. Payment is for completed adjudication work, regardless of approval or rejection.

General reviews pay $2; Specialist reviews pay $8. Payment is earned for completed adjudication work and never depends on approval or rejection.

Reading intake stats…

Reviewers, the platform, the panel

Who decides a credential — and how they are separated from the claimant.

Stewards are paid by the platform and appointed for a term. The live router selects the General or Specialist route; recorded decisions, independence checks, and aggregate panel metadata are the public record. Individual personnel remain confidential.

  1. G·01

    Reviewer qualifications

    General Stewards provide independent evidence review. Specialists provide subject-matter expertise where the Specialist route applies. Every reviewer follows the published standards, discloses conflicts, and recuses from affected claims.

    Subject-matter standing

    General Stewards review evidence independently; Specialists provide subject-matter expertise where the Specialist route applies.

    No employer / verifier tie

    Reviewers do not work for the claimant, the employer, or any downstream verifier. The pool is independent; intake filters out conflicts of interest at the panel level.

    Conflict-of-interest rule

    A Reviewer who has a current or recent professional, personal, or financial relationship with the claimant — or with any contesting party in a later challenge — does not participate on that panel. The recusal is recorded alongside the panel for that claim.

    Standing body, fixed term

    Reviewers are appointed to the standing pool for a renewable term. They are paid per claim on a fixed cadence, regardless of outcome — there is no bonus for approving and no surcharge for declining.

  2. G·02

    How a panel is composed

    The live router chooses the General route or the Specialist route when three conflict-free matching Specialists are available. Panel size and decision threshold follow the selected route; every assignment includes conflict checks.

    Size

    The route and panel threshold come from the live router: General when the Specialist route is unavailable, Specialist when three conflict-free matching Specialists are available.

    Composition

    Specialists are used when the claim needs matching subject-matter expertise; General Stewards provide independent evidence review when the General route applies.

    Conflict check

    Each panellist declares conflicts at intake. Conflict-affected panellists are rotated off the panel for that claim. The signed declaration is part of the audit record and is not a public surface.

  3. G·03

    Payment follows the route, never the verdict.

    General reviews pay $2 and Specialist reviews pay $8. Payment is for completed adjudication work, regardless of approval or rejection.

    The platform is the sole paymaster. The amount, the cadence, and the schedule are operational — published internally to staff and Reviewers, not published as on-page copy.

  4. G·04

    Claimant / Reviewer separation

    A Reviewer is not the claimant, is not the employer, is not any downstream verifier, and is not a sibling of any of those three. Recusal at intake is the enforce point; the standing pool is the structural guard.

    • The claimant is the named holder of record; the Reviewer is a stranger to that holder's record.
    • The employer may be referenced inside the evidence; the Reviewer is never an officer, agent, or contractor of that employer.
    • The downstream verifier — a recruiter, school, or board — does not employ or commission the Reviewer; any conflict is declared at intake.
  5. G·05

    Decision thresholds

    General Stewards approve or reject; Specialists may request revisions when the Specialist route is used. Every decision is recorded in the audit history.

    A simple majority of the convened panel determines the outcome on each claim. A two-thirds majority is recorded on revocation decisions and on decisions under contest, to make a sustained challenge a fail-safe for the credential.

  6. G·06

    Revision requests

    General Stewards approve or reject; Specialists may request revisions when the Specialist route is used. Every decision is recorded in the audit history.

    Revision requests are Specialist-only and are recorded with the missing element, the claimant response, and the Specialist decision.

  7. G·07

    Removal / disqualification of a Reviewer

    A Reviewer may be removed for cause by the platform. The grounds are: breach of the conflict-of-interest rule; falsifying a conflict declaration; a pattern of late or absent reviews; or a substantive and sustained conflict the platform could not have known at appointment. Removal does not retroactively invalidate prior completed reviews that did not involve the disqualifying fact.

    Removal is the platform's decision; it is recorded internally but not published on this page. The platform's standing pool is the durable record: no removal is hidden, and no removal is the result of any single claimant's complaint.

  8. G·08

    Who may contest a credential

    Any natural person who can articulate a concrete basis (see next section) may file a contest. Identity is verified through the contact form or by direct email to the platform's published inbox; the contest is logged with the verified name. A contestant is not required to be the credential holder, a verified employer of the credential holder, or a credentialed party themselves — only a natural person who can name the basis and back it with at least one item of evidence.

Contest & revocation governance

How a credential is challenged, and how the platform responds.

A contest is a written challenge to an issued Degree of Proof, filed with the platform. The platform responds on a defined timeline; an eligible contest convenes a fresh panel; a sustained contest is the only path to revocation.

G·09

Standing & what evidence a contest requires

A contest must name one of the following bases and provide at least one item of supporting evidence — a document, a recording, a sworn statement, or an independent test. The four bases are:

Factual error in the audit log

Some element of the recorded audit log — the issuance date, the panel composition, the track the claim was reviewed against — does not match the record.

Holder identity mismatch

The identity attached to the credential does not match the holder of record the contestant is asking about.

Evidence of fraud in the underlying claim

The artifact or evidence under the original claim is materially false, fabricated, or materially misrepresented in a way that would have changed the panel's decision.

Evidence of a conflict the original panel missed

A specific conflict of interest — financial, professional, or personal — between the claimant and any panellist, surfaced after the fact, that the standing recusal rule would have caught at intake.

Required supporting evidence

The contest must be filed with at least one item of supporting evidence: a document, a recording, a sworn statement, or an independent test. The evidentiary bar is left unspecified on this page; what is published is the conservative default applied in practice.

G·10

Frivolous-contest handling

A contest that names no basis, or that names a basis with no supporting evidence on file, is rejected at intake as ineligible. The contestant is informed in writing. The audit log records the ineligible filing and the date — no panel convenes, and the credential stays as-issued.

The conservative default is to reject at intake on form, not on substance. The platform does not convene a panel to determine eligibility; eligibility is determined by the platform's intake review.

G·11

Credential holder's right to respond

When a contest is filed, the credential holder is notified in writing — with the stated basis, but not the contestant's identity unless the contestant consents in writing. The holder has a defined response window to file a written reply into the same record; the platform logs the reply.

The credential holder's reply is filed into the same audit record and is read by the panel that decides the contest. The response window is operational, not a policy detail, and is not republished here to avoid drift between published copy and operational practice.

G·12

Original-reviewer exclusion on a contest panel

The live router selects the General or Specialist route; panel size and decision threshold follow the route.

Minimum panel size on a contest is three, matching the issuance panel. The conservative default is to never convene a contest panel smaller than the size that issued the credential.

G·13

Possible outcomes

Every contest concludes in one of three categories. The category is recorded on the credential's public record with date and reason. Only the sustained-in-whole outcome flips the status pill to REVOKED; the other two leave the credential as-issued.

Dismissed

The contest is filed but does not sustain. The credential stays as-issued; the audit log records the contest date, the dismissed basis, and the dismissal date.

Sustained in whole

Full revocation. The status pill flips to REVOKED, the audit log records the change, the date, and the reason, and the credential PDF is visibly marked revoked.

Sustained in part

The credential stays but a published note is added to the audit log, recording the partial finding and the date. The credential is not revoked.

G·14

What is public, and what is not

Two squads of facts: one that the platform surfaces on the registry for every credential, and one that stays private unless both sides consent. Below is the rule, the rule's intent, and the only surface where the line is drawn — the boundary between the public ledger and the private audit record.

Public

The credential ID, the status (Issued / Revoked / Under Contest), the contest outcome category (dismissed / sustained in whole / sustained in part), and the date of each change.

Not public

The supporting evidence, the contestant's identity, and any reply the credential holder files. These are not surfaced on the public registry even when the contest is sustained; they are filed into the audit record for the panel and for any subsequent challenge.

Consent-required releases

A public summary of the challenge may be released only when both sides — the contestant and the credential holder — consent in writing. The platform does not unilaterally release a public summary on a sustained contest.

G·15

Permanence of revoked credentials

A revoked credential remains visible in the public registry permanently, labelled REVOKED. The credential PDF, if previously issued, remains downloadable, but is visibly marked revoked on the credential surface itself. A revoked credential is not re-issued; if the original claim is reconsidered, the path is a fresh submission, not a reinstatement.

Revocation is permanent and visible. There is no escrow period, no quiet list, and no 'comes back' state — the registry is the durable record.

G·16

Reconsideration or appeal of a contest outcome

There is no separate appeal surface layered on top of the contest path. A party who has lost or won a contest and wishes to revisit the same credential must file a fresh contest, naming one of the four standing bases — factual error, holder identity mismatch, fraud, or a missed conflict — and supplying at least one item of supporting evidence. Reopening the same credential on the same evidence, without new support, is not a path. A fresh panel — drawn without the original reviewers — is what reads the new filing.

Unresolved policy

Whether the platform will eventually publish a dedicated 'appeal' intake on top of the contest intake, or continue to treat a fresh contest as the reconsideration mechanism, is an open question. Until decided, the public rule is: fresh contest, new panel, same four-bases bar. The page will be updated when the policy is set.

G·17

Corrections to the audit log

A factual error in the recorded audit log — a wrong issuance date, a track spelled incorrectly, a panel composition that does not match the convened panel — is a standing contest basis already (the first of the four). A non-controversial correction can also be flagged by any party to the platform inbox or the contact form, named clearly, with one piece of supporting evidence; the platform applies the fix and records it in the same audit log with date and reason. Corrections do not alter the credential's status pill — only the contested record.

Unresolved policy

Whether corrections are recorded as a new audit-log entry titled 'correction applied', as an additive note attached to the disputed entry, or as an amendment of the prior entry itself, is an open question. Until decided, the conservative default is: a new audit-log entry titled 'correction applied', with date and reason. The page will be updated when the policy is set.

G·18

What the audit log records — and what it does not

Two squads of facts. The audit log is the durable record of every state change a credential can produce; what the public surface exposes is a curated subset of that record. Below is what gets recorded, and what is held back from the public registry.

Recorded in the audit log

Panel composition and decision threshold; decision date; revision requests and the claimant's responses; contest filings, contest panel composition, and contest outcome category; revocation date and stated reason; any platform-side correction entries; the credential ID, the track, the issued-at timestamp, and the status pill at each state change.

Not surfaced publicly

The signatories, contact details, or biographies of individual Reviewers. The raw artifacts the claimant submitted. The supporting evidence a contestant files. The credential holder's reply on a contested record. The auditing signatures — the metadata that pins the audit log itself to a point in time.

Surface where the line is drawn

The boundary is between the public ledger (what /verify/[id], /audit/[id], and the registry surface) and the private audit record (what the panel reads, and what a subsequent challenge panel reads). A consent-required release, with both sides in writing, can move a single item across that line; nothing crosses by default.

Platform accountability

General reviews pay $2 and Specialist reviews pay $8. Payment is for completed review work, never for the verdict.

A Degree of Proof records what an independent panel decided; the platform is the steward of the record, not the panel. This section describes what happens when the platform itself makes an error — a recorded date, an applied rule, an obvious process mistake.

  1. G·19

    Platform errors and how they are corrected

    A platform error — a wrong recorded date, a rule applied in the wrong order, an obvious process mistake committed by the platform itself — does not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise valid credential. The platform's standing posture is to admit and record the correction in the same audit log with date and reason. A credential struck off the public ledger by a platform error does not re-enter through the correction; the path back is whichever of the four standing bases would have been available to a contestant in the first place. The platform inbox and the contact form both accept platform-error notices today; whether a separate, named 'platform error' intake is published is an open question, and the page will be updated when decided.

Genesis review

Conflict, recusal, and compensation on Genesis review.

Genesis reviews were carried out under the same standing rules that govern every panel review on the platform. Approved Genesis Founding Stewards keep their persisted Degree exemption after enrollment closes; later applicants do not receive it and follow the normal issued-Degree rule. Compensation for Founding Stewards is never tied to a claim outcome, and any steward with a disclosed conflict recuses before reading begins; the recusal is recorded in the audit log.

  1. G·20

    Conflict, recusal, and compensation on Genesis review.

    The normal Steward rule requires an issued Degree of Proof. An approved Genesis Founding Steward with the persisted Genesis Cohort exemption may satisfy the Degree gate without a Degree; that exemption persists after enrollment closes, while later applicants follow the normal rule. Other onboarding, identity, conflict, Specialist, and review requirements remain unchanged.

    Founding Steward — Genesis Cohort

    Compensation for Founding Stewards is never tied to approval or rejection of any claim, and any steward with a disclosed conflict recuses before reading begins. The recusal is recorded in the audit log.

    Hard cap

    The Genesis cohort is capped at 15 credentials — no more will be issued under this Protocol.

    Auto-expiry

    Every Genesis credential auto-expires once a normal panel of ordinary Stewards is recruited and operating. The exception's end is a governance event, not a quiet cutover.

    Archived under the Genesis Protocol · compensation never tied to approval · stewards recuse on conflict.

Genesis Protocol · Compensation

Founding Steward compensation is paid for review, never for verdicts.

Compensation for the Founding Stewards who reviewed Genesis claims is a fixed per-review amount, paid by the platform once independent review completes. It is explicitly never tied to approving or denying any individual claim — a Founding Steward is paid the same fixed amount whether the panel approves, denies, or sends a claim back for revision. The three commitments below apply to every Genesis claim and are non-dismissible.

  1. 1 · Fixed per-review amount

    Compensation for a Founding Steward who reviews a Genesis claim is a fixed per-review amount. The amount does not depend on the verdict delivered, the reviewer's relationship to the claimant, or the length of the dispute — it is set in advance and disclosed to the cohort.

  2. 2 · Never contingent on approving

    If the panel approves a Genesis claim, the reviewers who participated receive the same fixed per-review amount they would have received for any other reviewed claim. There is no approval bonus, no approval multiplier, and no tier that pays more for an approval majority.

  3. 3 · Never contingent on denying

    If the panel denies a Genesis claim, the reviewers who participated receive the same fixed per-review amount they would have received for any other reviewed claim. There is no denial premium, no denial quota, and no target that pays more for a denial majority.

Read the G·03 reviewer-compensation rule

Genesis Protocol · Conflict & recusal

How founder-era conflicts-of-interest and recusal are handled.

Genesis claims were reviewed under the same conflict-of-interest and recusal rule that governs every panel review on the platform. The four commitments below apply to every Genesis claim, are non-dismissible, and are recorded against the audit trail alongside the credential.

  1. 1 · Founder exclusion on own claims

    The Proofworks founder cannot review their own claims. No claim authored by the founder travels through a panel that includes the founder, regardless of who else is on the panel.

  2. 2 · Aggregate panel metadata, private reviewer identities

    Every Genesis claim is assigned a conflict-free panel from the cohort. Public visibility is limited to aggregate panel metadata; individual reviewer identities remain private.

  3. 3 · Recusal on prior relationship

    If any reviewer has a prior current or recent professional, personal, or financial relationship with the claimant, that reviewer recuses from the claim before reading begins. Recusal is recorded as a discrete event.

  4. 4 · Audit-trail recording

    Every conflict check is written into the audit log for the credential — including the panel count, the recusal event, and the decision. The public record shows the aggregate panel metadata, not individual identities.

Read the panel privacy rulesRead the audit-trail format

Founder-era credential

What the disclosure looks like on a Genesis-flagged credential.

Every credential archived under the Genesis Protocol carries a permanent disclosure on the public verification surface: the conflict-of-interest rule (compensation never tied to approval; stewards recuse on conflict), the 15-credential hard cap, and the auto-expiry that sunsets the cohort once ordinary Stewards are operating. The card below is the founder's own published credential, with the disclosure rendered exactly as it appears at /verify/[id]:

Read the disclosure the same way a verifier, a future employer, or a steward reading the public ledger would read it — at /verify/[id], in the holder profile, and on the registry row.

Founding Steward · Genesis Cohort

Archived under the Genesis Protocol.

This credential predates the public launch of the steward registry. It was archived, not earned through the public claim flow, and is preserved here so the holder's record stays auditable on the same ledger the platform serves live. Counts toward the founding cohort; is treated as a permanent record.

Governance

Compensation for Founding Stewards is never tied to approval or rejection of any claim, and any steward with a disclosed conflict recuses before reading begins. The recusal is recorded in the audit log.

Hard cap

The Genesis cohort is capped at 15 credentials — no more will be issued under this Protocol.

Auto-expiry

Every Genesis credential auto-expires once a normal panel of ordinary Stewards is recruited and operating. The exception's end is a governance event, not a quiet cutover.

Archived under the Genesis Protocol · compensation never tied to approval · stewards recuse on conflict. · /verify/PoT-99999

Verification result · Live ledger

Resolved by the Proofworks steward registry

PoT-99999
Trades · Track 01
Status · approved
no.99999
Holder
G. WeaverView holder profile · /u/g-weaver
Capability
Demonstrated competency in oxy-fuel fusion welding of low-carbon steel plate to AWS D1.1.

Audit hash

TESTHASH12345678

Open the audit trail

Issued · 2026-08-10 · /verify/PoT-99999

Read the full /genesis explainer

Read on, or file a contest

A published audit trail is itself the rule.

The page above states what is public, what is private, and what is left unspecified. If you can read the rule, you can read the audit trail that follows it — and if a contest is justified, you can file one.

Read How it worksContact the platform