How this works

Verification methodology

What a KPI record’s status means, who changes it, and what none of the statuses claim. Written so that a number on this platform can be argued with.

This is an internal workflow, not an external audit. No status here is an assurance opinion, a certification, or a statement by an independent auditor. It records that a named reviewer looked at stated evidence against a stated condition and made a decision.

Internal Review / Verification and External Assurance

Internal evidence review is the standard platform workflow. External assurance is a separate additional process and is not implied by an internal review status:

Internal Review / Verification: A reviewer assesses submitted evidence against defined acceptance criteria and records a decision. This is not an independent audit, statutory assurance, or external certification.
External Assurance — where required: A separate process that must identify its provider, scope, date, report, and conclusion when completed. An internal platform status does not represent an external assurance engagement.

Claims Governance: Provenance Pipeline

Claim provenance should make the supporting governed records traceable:

Claim Provenance Architecture:

Claim → Outcome/KPI → Review/Verification → Evidence → Project → Mandate → Approval

Reports should distinguish reported, evidenced, verified, approved, and externally assured information and link claims to their supporting records.

Decision Governance: Connecting Evidence to Capital Reallocation

Verification is not the finish line; it is the input to management action. The CSRise governance model answers the vital questions: Why did we invest? What happened? What does the evidence tell management? And what should happen to the capital next?

Decision Governance Lifecycle:

Evidence → Review → Decision → Capital Effect → Reallocation

When milestone evidence is reviewed, leadership records the decision separately from any resulting payment, capital release, return, or reallocation.

The statuses

Submitted / Pending

The project owner has submitted a figure and supporting evidence. It has not yet been reviewed and should not be treated as an approved or verified result.

Under review

An administrator has picked the record up and is checking the attached evidence against the figure entered.

Clarification Requested

The reviewer needs more information before completing the assessment. The request and response remain part of the review context.

Approved

A reviewer has accepted the submission against the applicable criteria. Approval is distinct from payment, an independent audit, or external assurance.

Rejected

The reviewer did not accept the submission. The reason should be recorded, and any resubmission should preserve the prior decision history.

What a reviewer decides

Review records should show whether evidence was accepted, rejected, or sent back for clarification, with the applicable reviewer decision. This internal assessment does not become external assurance because a record is approved.

What none of these mean

That the work will last. A borehole approved on the day it was drilled says nothing about year three.
That the money was spent efficiently. That is a different question and this does not ask it.
That the outcome followed. 500 people trained is an output; whether it changed anything is not claimed here.
That fraud is impossible or that evidence is authentic solely because it includes a timestamp, geotag, hash, or file metadata.

When a reviewer gets it wrong

They can. A rejected or queried value is not final: the project owner can resubmit with better evidence, and the earlier decision and note stay in the record.

See the statuses in the product