Explore

Governance & Operations

Governance Model

ClearTrace operates under a stewardship model that separates:

evidence submission

verification and analysis

publication and federation

No single role controls the full lifecycle of a case.

⁠

Roles & Responsibilities

Contributors

Submit cases, evidence, and testimony

Select consent and anonymity options

Cannot publish or finalize decisions

Reviewers

Verify evidence and sources

Apply scoring and pattern analysis

Recommend guardrail decisions

Legal Reviewers

Review high-risk cases prior to publication

Validate legal language and claims

Advise on redaction and disclosure timing

Admins / Stewards

Manage configuration and federation

Assign roles

Approve publication and sync policies

⁠

Evidence Standards

Admissible evidence includes:

investigative journalism

NGO research

regulatory and court filings

contracts and official documents

community and worker testimony

All submissions require:

source attribution

consent designation

risk flags where applicable

Speculative or defamatory submissions are rejected.

⁠

Verification & Review Workflow

Submission enters moderation queue

Source quality and relevance evaluated

Evidence classified (primary / secondary / uncorroborated)

Corroboration and cross-referencing applied

Legal review triggered when required

Only verified evidence informs public outputs.

⁠

Scoring & Pattern Analysis

Scores reflect documented risk and impact, not intent or reputation.

Scoring evaluates:

severity

recurrence

resistance to remediation

systemic entanglement

Scores are contextual signals and must be read alongside evidence.

⁠

Guardrail Decision Process

ClearTrace supports three engagement states:

Do Not Engage

Conditional Engage

Allow

Conditional Engagement may include:

reparative actions

audits

monitoring requirements

disclosure obligations

All decisions are evidence-traceable and revisable.

⁠

Publication & Transparency Rules

Public release requires:

verified evidence

completed review workflow

legal review when applicable

Redaction protects contributors and prevents harm. Draft or disputed material remains internal.

⁠

Appeals & Corrections

Entities may submit counter-evidence through a structured appeals process.

Appeals may result in:

score revision

decision update

public correction or annotation

Correction is treated as system integrity, not failure.

⁠

Continuous Monitoring

Medium- and high-risk entities are subject to:

periodic review

alert triggers

reassessment based on new evidence

Symbolic compliance does not reset risk status.

⁠

Legal & Ethical Safeguards

ClearTrace enforces:

contributor anonymity and consent controls

anti-retaliation principles

jurisdiction-aware publication

evidence-first standards to mitigate defamation risk

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.