# Comment Moderation Decision Log

Document a proportionate moderation decision with the applicable policy, minimum evidence, action, notice, appeal route, reviewer, and follow-up.

## Usage note

Use this log with a published moderation policy, trained decision makers, lawful evidence handling, and appropriate specialist support. It does not define what speech is lawful or replace urgent safety procedures. Collect only the evidence needed to explain and review a decision; restrict access and retention. Never record protected or highly sensitive traits merely because they are visible in a profile or discussion.

## How to use this template

1. Assign a case identifier and preserve only the content, report, thread context, timestamps, and platform details necessary for review.
2. Identify the policy version and exact clause, then describe the observable behavior, affected party, severity, and uncertainty.
3. Compare available actions for effectiveness, proportionality, urgency, reversibility, and impact on evidence or conversation context.
4. Record the decision, reviewer, user notice, escalation, duration, enforcement scope, retention rule, and appeal route.
5. Complete any appeal or follow-up, note reversals and precedents, and feed recurring ambiguity into policy and training review.

## Blank template

### Case intake

- **Case ID:** [Non-identifying reference]
- **Channel and content location:** [Controlled link or platform reference]
- **Reported at:** [Date, time, and zone]
- **Report source:** [User, moderator, system, or another]
- **Content author reference:** [Minimum necessary identifier]
- **Affected party:** [Role or group, if relevant]
- **Immediate safety concern:** [Yes or no, with action]
- **Assigned moderator:** [Name or role]

### Policy assessment

- **Policy version:** [Date or identifier]
- **Applicable clause:** [Exact rule]
- **Observed behavior:** [Neutral description]
- **Context reviewed:** [Thread, history, media, quotation, or another]
- **Severity factors:** [Reach, repetition, target, credibility, or sensitivity]
- **Mitigating context:** [If relevant]
- **Uncertainty:** [Missing evidence or interpretation question]
- **Comparable precedent:** [Case or none]
- **Assessment:** [Violation, no violation, or escalate]

### Decision and notice

- **Options considered:** [List]
- **Selected action:** [No action, warning, hide, remove, restrict, ban, or another]
- **Scope and duration:** [Exact effect]
- **Proportionality rationale:** [Why this option]
- **Decision maker:** [Name or role]
- **Second review required:** [Trigger and reviewer]
- **User notice:** [Message or reason notice is unsafe]
- **Reporter update:** [Permitted status]
- [ ] Criticism or viewpoint was not substituted for a policy violation.
- [ ] Reporter identity and private evidence are protected.
- [ ] Related copies or replies were handled consistently.

### Evidence, appeal, and follow-up

- **Evidence retained:** [Minimum record]
- **Access restriction:** [Who may view]
- **Retention or preservation date:** [Rule]
- **Appeal route and deadline:** [User-facing process]
- **Appeal reviewer:** [Independent role where practical]
- **Appeal result:** [Uphold, modify, reverse, or pending]
- **Restoration action:** [If reversed]
- **Precedent or policy issue:** [What needs review]
- **Case closed:** [Date and owner]