Reviewer route
FASO needs challenge strong enough to change the work.
Review is not a request for endorsement. It is a structured opportunity to identify unsupported assumptions, missing evidence, unsafe design, institutional weakness and conditions that should stop progression.
Reviewer route
What reviewers can examine
FASO needs specialists who can assess both the proposed institution and the instrument it intends to operate.
Public-interest case
Is the problem real, the observatory role distinct and the proposed contribution proportionate?
Technical architecture
Are identity, evidence, routing, replay, bounded state record, certainty, audit and publication controls coherent?
Validation proposition
Can the method be blinded, falsified, compared and independently reported?
Institutional design
Are authority, funding, governance, conflicts and publication protected against capture and overclaim?
What FASO offers
A defined exchange, not a vague invitation.
- A defined review issue and appropriately bounded evidence pack.
- Freedom to identify negative findings, uncertainty and stopping conditions.
- Accurate description of the reviewer’s role and authority.
- No use of a reviewer’s name, institution or findings beyond granted permission.
Participation boundary
Review does not become approval merely because findings are useful.
Reviewer comments remain attributable to their actual scope. FASO will not turn correspondence, participation or a completed review into institutional endorsement.
Take the next step
Register interest as an external reviewer.
State the area you can review and any independence, confidentiality or publication conditions that need to be considered.