# Subject-Matter Expert Review

Request focused expert review of technical correctness, missing context, terminology, evidence, assumptions, claim boundaries, and consequences of error.

## Usage note

Ask an expert to review only the domain and claims within their competence, and state whether the review is advisory or required approval. Give enough context and source access to decide efficiently. Expert review does not replace editorial clarity, accessibility, legal review, or independent evidence checks outside the agreed scope.

## How to use this template

1. Define the review domain, audience, risk, expected decision, version, deadline, and expert authority.
2. List material claims and questions with sources, assumptions, and known boundaries.
3. Ask the expert to mark each claim confirmed, conditional, incorrect, or outside their scope.
4. Resolve comments with the editor, obtain follow-up on meaning-changing revisions, and document disagreement.
5. Record signoff, unresolved limits, maintenance owner, and triggers for renewed expert review.

## Blank template

### Review request

- **Document and version:** [File or URL]
- **Audience and purpose:** [Reader task]
- **Publication context:** [Channel and reach]
- **Consequence of error:** [Why accuracy matters]
- **Expert and domain:** [Name, role, and relevant scope]
- **Review authority:** [Advisory / Required approval]
- **Out of scope:** [Other specialist reviews]
- **Deadline:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

### Claim review

- **Claim ID and location:** [Identifier]
- **Draft wording:** [Exact claim]
- **Writer interpretation:** [What it means]
- **Source and date:** [Link]
- **Assumptions:** [Conditions currently implied]
- **Question for expert:** [Specific decision]
- **Expert status:** [Confirmed / Conditional / Incorrect / Unable / Out of scope]
- **Required boundary:** [Population, version, region, unit, or another]
- **Recommended source or revision:** [Expert response]

### Context and terminology

- [ ] Definitions match the intended scope.
- [ ] Prerequisites and exceptions are not omitted.
- [ ] Units, sequence, labels, and examples are technically coherent.
- [ ] Uncertainty reflects the state of evidence.
- [ ] Promotional framing does not overstate the expert conclusion.
- [ ] Adjacent disciplines needing review are identified.

### Resolution and signoff

- **Editor action:** [Accepted change or rationale]
- **Meaning-changing revision returned:** [Yes / No / Not needed]
- **Disagreement:** [Positions and authority]
- **Unresolved risk:** [What remains unknown]
- **Approved version:** [Identifier]
- **Expert signoff:** [Name, date, and scope]
- **Maintenance trigger:** [Source, policy, version, or evidence change]