Verification rules
Match proof strength to Mission risk and give reviewers a policy they can apply consistently.
Verification rules should be strong enough for the Mission’s value and abuse risk, but no stronger than necessary.
Begin with the claim: what exactly must be true for a completion to qualify? Then choose independent signals that support that claim.
A useful policy states
- required proof and accepted formats;
- timing and eligibility checks;
- automatic signals, if any;
- when a human review is required;
- approval, rejection, and hold reasons;
- whether more evidence can be requested;
- the challenge window and reviewer;
- retention and Sponsor visibility.
Avoid a single fragile signal for high-value work. Also avoid collecting sensitive information simply because it might help. The evidence must remain relevant and lawful.
Reviewer guidance should include examples near the boundary: what passes, what fails, and what requires a hold. That is more useful than a long list of obvious cases.
Measure disagreement and reversal patterns. If reviewers frequently interpret one rule differently, improve the policy before increasing volume.