A clear invitation—not an invented review panel.
We need appropriate people to challenge the materials. This brief explains the proposed work; no reviewers are appointed, and no human review is claimed here.
What needs review
- Learning and access: six fictional missions, language support, transfer examples and facilitator/pilot materials. Seek educators and people with relevant lived/access experience.
- Scam and security: callback rehearsal, response signposts and practical boundaries. Seek appropriate independent security/digital-support expertise.
- Privacy and work: small-business guidance, input protection, human responsibility and jurisdiction/date qualifiers. Specialist/legal review is needed; the site does not provide personalised advice.
- First Nations and Pacific material: currently interim signposts/planning notes. Co-authorship and review require appropriate community authority, consent, local expertise and negotiated terms. A general AI or technical reviewer cannot substitute for those relationships.
Initial reading links: missions, host tools, scam guidance, business guidance, First Nations signpost, Pacific planning note.
Agree terms before doing the work
A possible starting scope is one resource and written notes, not an open-ended responsibility for the entire site. Time commitment, any fee or compensation, use of material, confidentiality, decision rights and attribution must be agreed with the maintainer before work starts. No budget, payment offer or response deadline has been committed on this page.
Named credit or anonymity should be agreed with the reviewer; no name, endorsement or quote is published without permission. Review of one topic is not certification of the site. Culturally restricted material should not be placed in the public note form or sent to AI services.
A proposed review workflow
- Express interest with a non-sensitive scope suggestion. The existing maintainer form stores the note privately; it sends no automatic notification and promises no reply time.
- If both sides wish to proceed, agree scope and terms through an appropriate private channel before starting.
- Review the named edition, identify evidence/errors and state limitations. A qualified human reviews their actual area of expertise; an AI critique is labelled separately.
- The maintainer records the disposition: correct, clarify, seek further review or explain why a recommendation was not adopted. Responsibility for publication stays with the publisher.
- Publish an edition-specific change record and agreed credit only after the review is completed. Keep unresolved issues and relevant limitations visible.
Current queue status
Learning/access, scam/security, privacy/work and appropriate community-led review are all pending. No named reviewer, completed human-review date or evidence of reader benefit is available. Editorial standards and correction history remain the source of published status.
Founder decisions still required: a workable intake/notification process, agreed response arrangements, review budget/compensation terms and suitable recruitment partnerships. This page does not manufacture those commitments.