# Partner Acknowledgment Policy

Campus Evidence Lab should earn public trust by making review scope visible. Acknowledgments must describe completed work, not aspirations.

## Core Rule

Do not list a reviewer, advisor, organization, partner, school group, journalist, or researcher unless documented review or collaboration is complete and public display permission is clear.

Prospective outreach, unanswered emails, informal praise, private encouragement, or one-off advice without a review artifact is not public impact.

## Acknowledgment Types

### Methodology Reviewer

Reviewed inclusion, exclusion, source hierarchy, confidence, verification, deduplication, privacy, or no-ranking language.

Public acknowledgment should describe the reviewed sections and whether changes were requested.

### Source Audit Reviewer

Checked source URLs, publishers, publication dates, source types, or source-to-record fit for a documented sample.

Public acknowledgment should describe the sample size or source family reviewed.

### Classification Reviewer

Reviewed event categories, affected-community labels, confidence labels, or verification labels against public source text.

Public acknowledgment should describe the classification area reviewed.

### Research Reviewer

Reviewed a public brief, research-guide language, or a narrow research question for overclaiming risk.

Public acknowledgment should describe the brief, question, or guide section reviewed.

### Organizational Collaborator

Worked on a defined public artifact, dataset improvement, review workflow, outreach effort, or technical contribution.

Public acknowledgment should describe the artifact or collaboration scope.

## Required Before Listing

- A public or internal record of what was reviewed.
- Permission to display the reviewer or organization name.
- Exact display language if the reviewer or organization requests it.
- A scope statement that avoids implying broader endorsement.
- A link to the public issue, pull request, report, brief, or artifact when available.

## Language Rules

Allowed:

- "Reviewed methodology language on confidence and no-ranking rules."
- "Reviewed a 25-record source sample for URL, publisher, and date accuracy."
- "Provided feedback on the research guide's responsible-use checklist."

Not allowed without explicit written permission:

- "Partnered with [Organization]."
- "Endorsed by [Organization]."
- "[Organization] certifies this dataset."
- "[Organization] agrees with all records."

## Public Page Standard

The acknowledgments page should include a status statement even when no acknowledgments exist. An empty but explicit page is better than silence because it prevents accidental partner claims.

## Corrections

If a reviewer or organization asks to change or remove acknowledgment language, update the public page promptly and record the change in the changelog or a public issue when appropriate.