Review, rework, and escalation
Route human decisions, Consensus disagreements, and benchmark exceptions to an accountable correction or review owner.
Review turns an acceptance decision into a workflow transition. Rework turns specific feedback into corrected annotations. Escalation assigns a decision that exceeds the current policy or expertise to an appropriate owner.
Use Review Stages for the complete reviewer procedure and QA Workflows for combined quality-control patterns.
Configure a correction loop
Connect the Review approval route to the next required check or Complete. Connect rejection to the intended annotation or correction stage. Add a named Review stage when another specialist must make a separate decision, then configure its eligible reviewers and return path.
Keep quality outcomes distinct
Reviewer rejects a correctable defect
Return it with actionable feedback, then review the correction.
Consensus fails the agreement requirement
Send it to Review and Refine through a Review stage, preserving the independent submissions.
Quality Gate fails
Investigate the submission and approved reference, then follow the configured correction or review route.
Quality Gate cannot evaluate
Follow Not evaluated. Do not label missing comparison evidence as a passed or failed benchmark.
Instructions are ambiguous
Ask the policy owner to resolve the rule and identify other affected work.
Source data is unusable
Apply the explicit source-exclusion or archive policy.
Operate the handoff
Inspect all relevant source context and the current instructions.
Identify the specific instance, boundary, timing, field, property, or relationship needing attention.
Correct it if the review policy permits, or leave an anchored issue that explains the expected change.
Use Approve or Reject as appropriate and confirm the destination and owner.
On return, check that the stated defect and related inconsistencies are resolved.
Escalate recurring policy or ontology gaps through controlled updates and team calibration.
Saving a correction does not complete a review transition. Resolving a comment does not by itself approve the item. Consensus adjudication additionally requires explicit approval of retained submitted objects and Item Properties; follow Consensus.
Escalate through configured responsibilities
Escalation is an operating path, not a universal Workbench action. Use an appropriate specialist Review stage or an authorized manager handoff. Give the specialist the source, disputed labels, relevant instruction, and question to decide. Define how the item returns to annotation, review, or completion after that decision.
Monitor repeated rejection reasons and inspect the affected cohort when a defect suggests a systemic policy problem. Keep Project Instructions, ontology choices, calibration examples, and workflow ownership consistent.
Next steps
Last updated