Reviewer Checklist
This checklist helps reviewers assess metric submissions before values become investor-facing.
Submission Completeness
Section titled “Submission Completeness”| Check | Reviewer Question |
|---|---|
| Assigned metrics | Does the submission cover the project’s active metric set? |
| Period | Is the reporting month clear and consistent? |
| Unit | Does each value use the standard unit? |
| Evidence | Is each material value supported by evidence or a method note? |
| Submitter | Is the responsible person or organization clear? |
Value Review
Section titled “Value Review”| Check | Reviewer Question |
|---|---|
| Plausibility | Does the value fit the project size, capacity, and recent trend? |
| Method | Is the method clear enough to repeat or challenge? |
| Boundary | Does the value describe the right project, site, period, and activity? |
| Double-counting | Could the same output, hectare, job, or money flow be counted elsewhere? |
| Estimate labeling | Are modeled or estimated values clearly identified? |
Evidence Review
Section titled “Evidence Review”| Check | Reviewer Question |
|---|---|
| Source quality | Is the evidence first-party, third-party, automated, audited, or anecdotal? |
| Date relevance | Does the evidence match the reporting period? |
| Traceability | Can the reported value be traced to source records? |
| Version control | Are superseded files or corrected values preserved? |
| Confidentiality | Is sensitive evidence handled through the correct Atlas permissions? |
Decision
Section titled “Decision”| Outcome | Use When |
|---|---|
| Approve | The value is complete, plausible, and sufficiently evidenced for the current reporting use. |
| Approve with note | The value is usable but has a limitation that should remain visible. |
| Return for correction | The sponsor can fix a missing value, wrong unit, unclear period, or incomplete method. |
| Reject | The value is unsupported, materially inconsistent, or not suitable for reporting. |