This template turns review from invitation-only discourse into a repeatable packet format. Reviewers can publish confirmatory or critical assessments with bounded scope, evidence, and explicit disagreement.
Packet naming: EXTERNAL_REVIEW_0001_[system-or-scope].md
Recommended publication targets: GitHub issue, repository discussion, attached document, or linked external report.
Minimum standard: the reviewer must state scope, method, evidence examined, claims confirmed, claims disputed, and what remains unknown.
# External Review 0001: [System or Scope]
## 1. Reviewer Metadata
- Reviewer name or pseudonym:
- Affiliation or relevant role:
- Date:
- Public attribution allowed: Yes / No
## 2. Review Scope
- Target reviewed:
- Version or commit reviewed:
- Review type: specification / implementation / rubric / audit packet
- Out-of-scope areas:
## 3. Sources Examined
- Normative sources:
- Evidence artifacts:
- Runtime tests performed:
- External standards referenced:
## 4. Method
- What was inspected:
- What was reproduced:
- What assumptions were necessary:
- What could not be verified:
## 5. Findings
| Severity | Claim or area | Finding | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Critical / High / Medium / Low | | | |
## 6. Agreement and Divergence
- Claims confirmed:
- Claims partially confirmed:
- Claims disputed:
- Unknowns that remain:
## 7. Standards Positioning
- Relevant framework or standard:
- Where Protective Computing aligns:
- Where it diverges:
- Whether the divergence is justified:
## 8. Recommendations
1.
2.
3.
## 9. Publication Notes
- Can this review be linked publicly from the Protective Computing site: Yes / No
- Redactions or confidentiality limits: