FASO is seeking a small number of independent reviewers to test Phase 0 materials for clarity, operational realism, and governance discipline. We are not asking for endorsement. We are asking for scrutiny: what is strong, what is unclear, what is missing, and what would undermine credibility.

What we are asking you to review

  • Whether the overall design is coherent and internally consistent (methods, governance, transparency boundary).

  • Whether the Phase 0 scope is realistic and appropriately constrained.

  • Whether the “descriptive, non-prescriptive” posture is maintained throughout.

  • Whether evidence-handling and provenance claims are stated in a way that is testable and auditable.

  • Any high-risk ambiguities, failure modes, or areas where language should be tightened.

What we will send

On request, we will send a small review pack containing:

  • A short overview (what FASO is, what Phase 0 is, what “done” means).

  • Selected extracts of the technical/governance design relevant to your expertise.

  • A short set of targeted review questions.

  • A simple response format (email is fine).

Time commitment

A useful review can be as little as 20–30 minutes. Deeper review is welcome but not required. We will adapt the pack to match your available time and area of expertise.

What we do and do not do

  • We do not request privileged access to anyone’s systems or data.

  • We do not request confidential information.

  • We do not publish reviewer names without explicit permission.

  • We will treat feedback as advisory and will incorporate it transparently into the next revision cycle.

How to respond

Email: Founder@project-faso.org

Subject line: Reviewer — [Your Name / Organisation]

In your note, it helps if you include:

  • Your preferred focus area (governance, evidence handling, drift observability, operations, funding independence).

  • How much time you can spare (20 min / 1 hour / deeper).

  • Any constraints (e.g., “no attachments,” “summary only,” etc.).

Suggested review prompts (pick any):

  1. What is unclear or over-claimed?

  2. What would you remove to increase credibility?

  3. What is missing that would be necessary for Phase 0 to be reviewable?

  4. Where does the design become hard to operationalise?

  5. What would you test first, and what would you ignore?