Proposed Community Review Process

Kinesema needs human review because a technically consistent result can still be linguistically wrong, unnatural, culturally inappropriate, inaccessible, or misleading. Review should therefore happen at defined points during research and development, not only after a polished interface has been produced.

What Review May Cover

A review should have one explicit scope. Depending on the material, it may consider:

• intended meaning and sentence structure;
• SgSL grammar or sign choice;
• naturalness and cultural context;
• movement, signing space, timing, or non-manual information;
• clarity of an explanation or learning example;
• accessibility of an interaction; or
• whether the system presents uncertainty honestly.

One review does not automatically cover every area. A person reviewing the clarity of an explanation, for example, is not also approving its linguistic accuracy unless that responsibility was explicitly included.

Who May Participate

Future review may involve Deaf signers, SgSL users, Deaf educators, qualified interpreters, accessibility practitioners, learners, and technical contributors. Their roles are not interchangeable, and no individual should be presented as speaking for an entire Deaf community.

Before a review begins, Kinesema Labs should state:

• what material is being reviewed;
• why the person is being asked;
• what kind of judgment is requested;
• how the response may be recorded or used;
• whether attribution is requested or optional; and
• what remains outside the reviewer’s responsibility.

Participation should be informed and voluntary. A reviewer should be able to decline, limit, or withdraw from the activity without being treated as an obstacle to the project.

Proposed Review Flow

1. Prepare a bounded item. Present the exact sentence, explanation, rule, motion sample, or interaction being reviewed. Include the current status and known limitation.
2. Confirm scope and consent. Agree on the review question, expected use of the response, attribution preference, and any confidentiality boundary.
3. Collect the response. Allow the reviewer to accept the item, request a correction, identify missing context, or decline to decide.
4. Record the outcome. Preserve the item reviewed, the scope, the response, relevant reasoning, and any unresolved issue without expanding the reviewer’s authority.
5. Make a project decision. Kinesema Labs decides whether to revise, block, retain, or retire the item. A reviewer’s feedback must not be silently rewritten into a different conclusion.
6. Verify the change. If the material changes, check that the correction was implemented and determine whether another review is required.
7. Show the resulting status. Public material should distinguish what was reviewed, what remains uncertain, and what has not been approved.

Minimum Review Record

A useful review record should identify:

• the exact item and version reviewed;
• the review question and scope;
• the reviewer’s relevant role or competence;
• any role overlap or material AI assistance;
• the outcome and requested correction;
• unresolved questions; and
• the date and resulting project status.

Private identity, contact, consent, and compensation information should remain separate from any public summary unless the reviewer has explicitly agreed to its disclosure.

Contributor Care

Community knowledge is not free validation material. Review takes time, attention, and lived or professional expertise. Requests should be limited, accessible, respectful of the reviewer’s energy, and honest about whether compensation is available.

Kinesema Labs should avoid repeatedly asking one person to carry responsibility for a whole language, community, or technical domain. Feedback should be acknowledged, acted on where accepted, and not used to imply endorsement of the project as a whole.

What Review Does Not Establish

A completed review does not prove universal correctness, community consensus, product accessibility, safety for every use, or permanent approval. It provides one attributable human judgment within a recorded scope.

Until a real process is separately established, Kinesema should continue to mark relevant language and motion work as review required and avoid presenting experimental output as accepted SgSL.