Review context
Why this is still only an example
The worked record demonstrates scanability and terms, but a real listing still needs identity checks, evidence review, challenge windows, and an agreement room after a mutual introduction.
current status
Awaiting reviewerStatus card
Status: Worked example; manual review required before reliance.
Why this status: the visible status is still a review state, not completion, custody, enforceability, or moral endorsement.
status_visiblehuman_review_required
Next step: Treat this as a review state, not a claim of completion, legal enforceability, custody, or moral endorsement.
action evidence
Awaiting reviewerAction evidence
Reviewer inspection of the named evidence before reliance.
Why this status: a named proof method and clear evidence locator are available for inspection; no completed evidence review is established here.
evidence_rule_namedevidence_sufficiency
Next step: Attach or inspect one scoped artifact for each factual action claim before relying on the record.
baseline confidence
Awaiting reviewerCounterfactual baseline
Moderate: Baseline claim: $1,000 would otherwise have gone to Gun control. Reviewers should ask for prior giving history, dated intent, and counterparty challenge.
Why this status: a confidence heuristic is not a completed counterfactual review; a reviewer must inspect the dated no-trade evidence.
baseline_statedbaseline_credibility
Next step: What would you do if this trade did not happen? Be concrete. Mention your current intention, prior behavior, or any evidence that makes your baseline credible.
externality review
Awaiting reviewerExternality review
Political-adjacent case study. Keep below lower-risk examples and require externality review for affected communities and unrepresented values.
Why this status: the mode or causes can affect third parties, incentives, or unrepresented values.
externality_review_requiredhuman_review_required
Next step: Ask who is affected outside the two parties, what harm pathway exists, and what remedy or challenge window is available.
participant relative scores
Participant-stated contextParticipant-relative scores
Participant-stated importance 8/10; counterparty minimum 7/10. Confidence: High.
Why this status: scores are bounded as participant-stated context, not platform ranking.
participant_relative_scoresno_global_moral_ranking
Next step: This score reflects the participant's own stated priorities. It is not a platform judgment about objective moral value.
appeal scope
Review scope informationAppeal scope
Appeals should target the specific reviewed claim, evidence row, baseline concern, disclosure decision, or policy flag.
Why this status: appeals require reviewer handling and must stay within the reviewed issue.
appealable_review_scopereviewer_summary
Next step: If you think this review decision is wrong, appeal the specific claim that was reviewed. Appeals do not reopen unrelated moral disagreements by default.
Participant-stated importance
8/10
Not a platform moral ranking. This score reflects the participant's stated view, not Moral Trade's assessment of moral value.
Counterparty minimum acceptable importance
7/10
A counterparty would still need to agree this threshold is adequate.
Confidence
High
Confidence is about the stated score and review context, not objective moral value.
Action evidence
Manual review required
Reviewer inspection of the named evidence before reliance.
Baseline confidence
Moderate
Baseline claim: $1,000 would otherwise have gone to Gun control. Reviewers should ask for prior giving history, dated intent, and counterparty challenge.
Third-party externality review
Required before reliance
Political-adjacent case study. Keep below lower-risk examples and require externality review for affected communities and unrepresented values.
Safety boundary
No escrow or custody claim
Moral Trade records terms and evidence; it is not legal, tax, custody, or escrow service.