The authority to end derived judgments once the original assessment is gone

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

1. Option 1

   Re-review by the original evaluation's issuing agency

   The issuing agency judges expiration and context change together, handling the end of effect consistently, but it is hard to adequately judge grounds added by other communities

2. Option 2

   Re-review by each using community

   Each community examines its own grounds and local meaning and bears responsibility for the judgment, but a moving group must request re-review of the same past evaluation repeatedly

3. Option 3

   Re-review by a joint re-review body

   A common body groups derivative paths and reviews effect, reducing duplicate requests, but review resources concentrate and a central body ends up determining the meaning of local evaluations

The situation as it stands

Renegotiating without allocating authority leaves unclear, for the whole contract term, who to ask to re-review effect after the original evaluation expires

The Daul Reputation Compatibility Cooperative, a fictional organization, and member communities operating different evaluation systems

1. Premise 1In this independent synthetic premise, each community runs a differentiated evaluation system, so a single original evaluation is converted into multiple admission-suitability judgments. Even after the original evaluation's period of use ends and the data is discarded, the effect of the derivative judgments remains in the linkage network
2. Premise 2In this synthetic renegotiation, the board can impose re-review obligations only on derivative judgments that member communities exchanged through the cooperative network. There are no staff to trace back every conversion, so the burden differs between a blanket change of effect and individual review
3. Premise 3Among the synthetic stakeholders, the group seeking to move protests that an already concluded evaluation keeps controlling new admissions. The receiving community asserts the independence of its own interpretation, and the issuing agency opposes being held responsible for derivative judgments without holding the grounds

Where it holdsAllocate the authority to re-review the effect of derivative admission judgments relying on expired original evaluations within the cooperative's linkage network

What can be lost

• Groups seeking to move can bear the cost of rebutting judgments whose grounds have vanished, along with admission delays
• Receiving communities can lose useful judgments of their own, or spend joint activity resources handling re-reviews
• Issuing agencies can be saddled with responsibility for derivative interpretations they did not control, or suffer the loss that their termination notice becomes ineffective

What is still unknown

1. Unknown 1The extent to which derivative judgments can be maintained on independent grounds even without the original evaluation is unverified
2. Unknown 2Whether the same change of effect will be reflected in existing copies held by member communities even after the issuing agency sends a termination notice is unknown
3. Unknown 3The expertise and processing time the joint re-review body needs to handle different meanings of failure are not settled

Signals to decide again

• The linkage network's audit officer samples monthly any use in admission screening of derivative judgments that persist after the termination notice
• The re-review secretariat tallies each quarter the share of re-review cases that presented independent grounds other than the original evaluation
• The mobility support officer compares monthly, by community, the pending re-review period and the number of repeat requests