Docs
Concepts

Assessments

Due diligence on a review or a decision — requested by the board and blocking until recorded, or provided by the author as supporting information.

#Two Flavours

	Requested by the board	Provided by the author
Who raises it	A chair, decision maker or reviewer seat on the review's board — never the submitter	The submitter of the review, or the author of a decision
Who records the result	Only the named assignee, as themselves	The author, at the moment of providing it
Blocks approval?	Yes, every approving outcome, until recorded or waived	Never
Can be waived	By the chair, with a reason	Not needed
Editable afterwards	No — the recorded result stands	By its author only

The split is deliberate: an author can put due diligence on the table up front and shorten the cycle, but can never satisfy the board's own ask on its behalf.

A requested assessment — it blocks approval until recorded or waived; resubmission makes results stale

#Types and Templates

Nine types: DPIA, security, supplier, clinical safety, AI impact, accessibility, impact, scope, and other (with a title). Each type carries a template — the headings a competent result answers — inserted into the summary as a skeleton. Templates are prompts, never regulation text.

#Results

Result	Meaning
Satisfactory	No concerns
Satisfactory with remarks	Acceptable, with points the board should note
Unsatisfactory	The assessor has concerns. This does not hard-block: boards decide, the product informs
Not applicable	The assessment does not apply, with the reason

A result needs a summary of at least ten characters and may carry an external reference — a URL or document identifier. Archigov stores the pointer, never the document.

#Blocking, Waiving and Staleness

An open requested assessment blocks approved, approved with conditions and approved subject to circulation. The item is not ready, does not reach the consent agenda, and does not appear in the chair's declare queue. The reason is shown as assessments outstanding.
The chair (or the item's acting chair) can waive a requested assessment with a reason of at least ten characters.
When a review is resubmitted, completed results are marked stale — they assessed the earlier version — but are never deleted. An author updating a provided assessment re-affirms it and clears the stale mark.

#Assessments on a Decision

An author can attach assessments to a decision before it is submitted — for example when the AI decision review finds a critical claim without evidence and suggests the assessment that would support it. These stay attached to the decision, follow it into its review, and appear there as On the Decision. They never block.

#Where Assessments Appear

On the review's Board Record, with the type, assignee, due date and result; the written result expands in place.
In the assignee's work queue and the header bell.
On the timeline (assessment_requested, assessment_completed, assessment_waived, assessment_provided, assessment_updated), in the audit chain (assessment:request, result, waive, reassign, provide, update), and in the evidence pack.

If the AI feature is enabled, the assessor can Draft Summary with AI: it fills the type's template headings from the review, and marks gaps To be confirmed. The assessor edits and records it as their own.

The platform admin has no part in assessments (403 on every route).

Something unclear or out of date? Write to hello@archigov.com or open an issue on GitHub.