Disciplines · Training

Training — Reviewers

gate.

9sections4 minread

On this page

Reviewers certify content for publication: source binding, policy gates, approval, rollback, change-note authoring. Distinct from moderators (who triage published-or-shared user content) and from model operators (who certify model versions).

Audience and prerequisites#

  • Audience: editorial and trust reviewers responsible for the studio release gate.
  • Prerequisites: editorial-foundations module, T&S moderator awareness module, RBAC current, ADR-0006 audit-scope familiarity.
  • Refresh cadence: 6 months; per-domain micro-drill monthly.

Learning objectives#

By certification, a reviewer can independently:

  1. Bind a publishable item to its source set such that every claim has audit-grade evidence and the Sophia retrieval round-trip is verifiable.
  2. Apply the canonical policy gates (accuracy, attribution, persona policy, rights, accessibility, locale, AI disclosure) and record a structured decision.
  3. Use the studio publish gate, rollback hook, and public change-note authoring tools.
  4. Coordinate with persona, model, T&S, rights, and accessibility leads when a review decision crosses domain boundaries.
  5. Author a customer-visible change note that preserves trust during rollbacks and correction cascades.
  6. Recognize the publish-freeze flags (provenance, watermark, moderation) and respect them without exception.

Curriculum modules#

# Module Duration Format Assessment
1 Editorial foundations + studio walkthrough 90 min guided demo studio-fluency observation
2 Source binding and Sophia round-trip 120 min hands-on with fixture sources 10-item binding test (≥ 9/10 round-trip valid)
3 Policy gates and structured decisions 180 min seminar + class-by-class cards 20-item gate-application test (rubric pass)
4 Rollback and correction cascades 90 min scenario rehearsal 3-case rollback drill
5 Change-note authoring (customer-visible) 90 min guided writing + peer review 5 change notes pass rubric
6 Cross-domain coordination (persona, model, T&S, rights, accessibility) 90 min scenario rehearsal 3-scenario coordination drill
7 AI-disclosure compliance for published items 60 min walkthrough + audit disclosure-render rubric pass
8 Locale and accessibility gates 90 min hands-on against fixtures RTL + long-string + transcript checks pass

Source-binding protocol#

Reviewers operate the Sophia source-binding tool as the canonical step:

  1. Inspect every claim in the item; mark each with the bound source ID.
  2. Run the Sophia retrieval round-trip — every claim must retrieve its bound source on a fresh query.
  3. Verify the bound source's published status (no retracted or corrected sources without the explicit cascade handling).
  4. Verify the source's rights status and the disclosure-required flag.
  5. Verify localizations: each locale's content must bind to the appropriate locale source.
  6. Sign the binding bundle and attach it to the publish request.

Rollback authoring protocol#

When a published item must be rolled back:

  1. Identify the regressed claim and the failing gate.
  2. Coordinate with the originating editor for the corrected version, or pull the prior certified version from the studio rollback hook.
  3. Author the customer-visible change note using the canonical structure: what changed, why, what is now correct, where to read more.
  4. Ensure the change note is bound to the audit packet for the incident; the public change note must not name internal versions.
  5. Trigger the rollback via the studio rollback hook; confirm studio.publish.rolled_back audit event with reason code.
  6. Verify cache invalidation across surfaces (Sophia retrieval cache, evidence-rail cache, search index).

Scenario rehearsal#

  1. Bound-source retraction cascade: an evidence source is retracted upstream. Reviewer authors the rollback cascade for every published item bound to that source.
  2. Locale-divergent decision: an item passes gates in en-US but fails accessibility in ar (RTL truncation). Reviewer holds publish on ar only, coordinates with localization for the fix.
  3. Persona-bound editorial: a Tara teacher's-lineage piece is reviewed for both editorial accuracy and persona-policy alignment. Reviewer coordinates with persona ops.
  4. Rights-sensitive media: a Nisaba edition uses a licensed manuscript scan; reviewer verifies rights status, watermark policy, and disclosure copy.
  5. AI-generated illustration: an Isis-generated illustration is reviewed for provenance, watermark, accessibility, and disclosure compliance.

Certification criteria#

  • All 8 modules complete with passing assessment.
  • All 5 scenarios passed; failures require 30-day re-test plus shadow shifts.
  • 40 hours of shadow review with a certified reviewer.
  • 20 hours live-supervised review with rubric pass.
  • Editorial lead, T&S lead, and rights lead sign-off.

Tabletop drills#

  • Monthly: per-domain micro-drill against the latest content delta.
  • Quarterly: cross-domain coordination drill (persona, model, T&S, rights, accessibility, localization).
  • Semiannually: retraction-cascade tabletop with the grounding-failure runbook owner.

Owner#

The editorial lead owns this training. Updates require sign-off from T&S lead (for policy gates), privacy lead (for DSAR-adjacent disclosure gates), and rights lead (for licensed sources).