Review Disclosure

Work: PP-SPEC-064: Proof of Efficacy Mapping to IETF SCITT Licensor: Nebulonium, Inc., dba HACKERverse (Proof Protocol)

Declaration

[REVIEWED] No [/END OF REVIEWED]

[REVIEWED BY] None [/END OF REVIEWED BY]

What this file is

REVIEWERS.md states whether anyone other than the author has reviewed this repository, who they are, whether each reviewer is a human or an AI, what they reviewed, and what interests they hold. It sits at the root of every Proof Protocol repository beside AI_DISCLOSURE.md (who wrote it), FUNDING.md (who paid for it), and LICENSE.md (who may use it).

What it must accomplish

1. Transparency. Any reader, human or machine, can tell from this file alone whether the work was reviewed, by whom, and how far the review went.
2. Traceability. Every reviewer is named and identified by ORCID or URL, so a reader can find the person or system that reviewed the work.
3. No borrowed authority. A review covers only its stated scope. A reviewer's name never implies endorsement of anything outside that scope, and a review is never presented as proof, certification, or conformance (Proof Economy Code of Ethics, Sections 6.1 and 6.3).
4. Human and AI kept apart. Every review states whether a human or an AI performed it, and for an AI, which system. An AI review is not presented as a human review (Code of Ethics, Section 8.8).
5. Ethics. The Proof Economy Code of Ethics (https://proofeconomy.foundation, published at https://github.com/proofprotocol/CODE-OF-ETHICS) MUST be followed. Where this file and the Code differ, the stricter rule applies.

Fields

Example of a reviewed repository:

[REVIEWED]
Yes
[/END OF REVIEWED]

[REVIEWED BY]
Name: Jane Example
Type: human
ID: 0000-0002-1825-0097
Affiliation: Example University
Scope: Sections 1 to 9, normative text
Date: 2026-11-01
Conflicts: none
[/END OF REVIEWED BY]

[REVIEWED BY]
Name: Example Review Agent
Type: ai
Model: Example Model 1.0
ID: https://example.com/agent
Affiliation: Example Labs
Scope: schemas and conformance vectors
Date: 2026-11-02
Conflicts: none
[/END OF REVIEWED BY]

Rules

1. What counts as a review. A reading of the work by someone other than its author, with findings, whose scope is stated. Typo fixes, automated linting, and the author's own drafting assistance are not reviews; AI drafting assistance belongs in AI_DISCLOSURE.md.
2. Scope is binding. The Scope: line is the whole of what the reviewer looked at. Nothing outside it is reviewed.
3. Conflicts. A reviewer states every financial, employment, advisory, or competitive relationship with the Licensor, a funder, or a Provider measured under these specifications. Disclosure alone does not cure a conflict (Code of Ethics, Section 8.6).
4. Consent. A human reviewer is listed only with their consent, and may ask to be removed from future versions; a past version's record is not rewritten.
5. History is the audit trail. This file is versioned with the repository. A review, once recorded for a version, stays in that version's history.
6. Markers. The markers appear bare, each on its own line, exactly as written above. They are not wrapped in comments.
7. Fail closed. A repository with no REVIEWERS.md, more than one [REVIEWED] block, a value other than Yes or No, Yes with no review, No with a review, a review missing a required field, or an AI review without Model:, is treated as unreviewed.
8. Humans and machines. A person reading this file and a program parsing the markers reach the same result.