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
Receipts, donation records, and an annual review checkpoint.
Why this status: a proof method is named, but the artifact still needs reviewer inspection before reliance.
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: Review should compare receipts with prior giving history, declared intention, duration, and counterparty review.
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
No listed trigger detectedExternality review
Review whether the trade creates third-party harms, bad incentives, or objections from moral views not present in the match.
Why this status: Automatic screening found no listed trigger. This does not establish that third-party harms were reviewed or ruled out.
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: Medium.
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
Medium
Confidence is about the stated score and review context, not objective moral value.
Action evidence
Annual receipts
Receipts, donation records, and an annual review checkpoint.
Baseline confidence
Moderate
Review should compare receipts with prior giving history, declared intention, duration, and counterparty review.
Third-party externality review
Required before reliance
Review whether the trade creates third-party harms, bad incentives, or objections from moral views not present in the match.
Safety boundary
No escrow or custody claim
Moral Trade records terms and evidence; it is not legal, tax, custody, or escrow service.