Prepared map, not recruitment or appointment. No outreach, reviewer registry, trust root, council, acceptance authority, or private credential handoff is active. These counts describe the frozen corpus. They do not prove that a person is qualified, independent, available, or appointed.

The minimum review workload

Frozen packets
336
Primary records
1,636
Minimum approval actions
1,812
Two-person records
176
Controlled expertise scopes
29
Governance role-seats
12

The approval-action count sums each record’s minimum independent approvals. It is not a headcount: one qualified person may review several records, while conflicts, complementary scopes, workload, accessibility, and independence may require more people. The 176 two-person records create 176 additional minimum approval actions beyond one per record.

Twelve review queues

Staff by bounded queue and competence. Do not ask one “space expert” to approve health, governance, cyber, ecology, accessibility, law, and propulsion together.

Exact frozen workload by review family
QueuePacketsPrimary recordsTwo-person records
Academy track packets 12 72 0
System evidence packets 20 445 169
Organization profile packets 167 175 0
Ecosystem task packets 10 60 0
Leadership pathway packets 10 13 0
Technical interactive packets 5 5 1
Public synthesis packets 6 70 3
Event-series packets 35 71 0
Opportunity packets 35 35 0
Atlas resource packets 32 686 0
Governance control packets 3 3 3
Visual provenance packet 1 1 0

Expertise demand map

Packet requests are orientation signals. Required-domain records are non-substitutable qualifications. Complementary groups accept one of several controlled scopes and must still meet the record’s independence and minimum-person rules. The columns must not be added into a reviewer score.

All 29 controlled review scopes
ScopePackets requestingRecords requiring exact domainComplementary groups accepting scope
information science
information-science
237 0 974
ecosystem due diligence
ecosystem-due-diligence
213 0 260
affected public rights
affected-public-rights
34 0 279
governance law rights
governance-law-rights
6 85 105
systems engineering
systems-engineering
70 0 89
clinical health
clinical-health
4 51 65
accessibility disability justice
accessibility-disability-justice
54 0 62
dual use risk
dual-use-risk
3 54 54
institution building
institution-building
23 0 88
event access freshness
event-access-freshness
35 0 72
defensive cyber safety
defensive-cyber-safety
3 34 41
visual science communication
visual-science-communication
12 0 62
opportunity eligibility access
opportunity-eligibility-access
35 0 35
radiation health physics
radiation-health-physics
3 15 31
security assurance
security-assurance
5 0 41
human factors
human-factors
14 0 31
ethics planetary protection
ethics-planetary-protection
4 0 40
mission physics
mission-physics
4 0 39
nuclear safety
nuclear-safety
0 17 17
closed loop systems
closed-loop-systems
3 0 28
manufacturing maintenance
manufacturing-maintenance
3 0 28
propulsion energy
propulsion-energy
3 0 28
structures safety
structures-safety
3 0 28
reproductive health rights
reproductive-health-rights
3 3 18
ai knowledge assurance
ai-knowledge-assurance
3 0 18
communications navigation
communications-navigation
2 0 17
ecology food
ecology-food
2 0 17
editorial governance
editorial-governance
4 0 4
culture education
culture-education
1 0 6

Governance cannot be staffed by reviewers alone

The activation register currently defines 8 mandatory roles totaling 12 minimum role-seats. Role-seats are not a guaranteed unique-person minimum: the final conflict and separation rules determine which roles may or may not overlap.

Unstaffed roles required before accepted review can publish
RoleMinimum peopleIndependenceExample authorityExample prohibition
accountable publisher
accountable-publisher
1 Not counted as independent review Provide resources Count as an independent reviewer
editorial coordinator
editorial-coordinator
1 Required Freeze review packets Substitute for domain review
editorial council
editorial-council
3 Required Adopt evidence procedures Treat aggregate votes as domain expertise
editorial appeal authority
editorial-appeal-authority
2 Required Pause publication Hear a decision the person originally made
dual use screening panel
dual-use-screening-panel
2 Required Screen proposed work Rely on a defensive label alone
dual use stop work authority
dual-use-stop-work-authority
1 Required Immediately suspend proposed or active work Authorize restart alone
dual use stop work alternate
dual-use-stop-work-alternate
1 Required Exercise stop-work when the primary is unavailable or conflicted Serve as alternate while supervised by the primary for the affected matter
qualified legal export advisor
qualified-legal-export-advisor
1 Required Advise on jurisdiction, sanctions, export controls, controlled information, and required authorizations Treat legal permissibility as ethical approval

A credible activation sequence

  1. Authorize bounded recruitment. Decide who may contact candidates, what compensation can be offered, how conflicts are assessed, and where private identity and qualification evidence may be handled. None of that authority exists yet.
  2. Establish trust before decisions. Appoint two independent registry authorities, pin their distinct public keys, activate the reviewer registry, and staff appeal, stop-work, editorial, legal/export, and publication roles.
  3. Calibrate on four packets. Use the calculation, visual, mission-framing, and time-critical opportunity pilots on Review Start. Publish no decision until identity, scope, independence, signature, acceptance, and redaction gates pass.
  4. Review the highest-consequence systems first. Pair domain-method reviewers with rights, affected-public, safety, or governance reviewers. Preserve contest, reject, minority, and recusal outcomes.
  5. Parallelize bounded queues. Run Academy, Atlas, organization, event, opportunity, leadership, and public-synthesis work in small batches with stable packet fingerprints and explicit correction ownership.
  6. Accept and publish separately. Governance acceptance and public-redaction review must be performed by authorized people distinct from the original reviewer where required. Only a complete fingerprint-bound projection may change publication state.

How a person can prepare to lead here

Evidence lead

Practice bounded judgment

Choose one scope you can genuinely support. Work through a calibration packet, cite exact locators, state transfer limits, and make revision or recusal as normal as approval.

Institution lead

Design for disagreement

Learn conflict assessment, appeal separation, privacy-bounded records, compensation independence, minority findings, stop-work, and anti-retaliation procedures.

Program lead

Make throughput inspectable

Track frozen packets, reviewer capacity, corrections, stale decisions, second-review coverage, accessibility barriers, and unresolved negative findings without ranking people by prestige.

Interest is welcome, but public forms are not a credential or decision channel. Until a private handoff is explicitly authorized, use contact only to express bounded interest without sending identity documents, credentials, conflict evidence, signatures, or sensitive material.

Hard boundaries

  • AI may help inspect or format a draft but cannot be an independent reviewer, registry authority, acceptance authority, or public-1 authorizer.
  • A source author, employee, investor, customer, sponsor, sales beneficiary, direct supervisor, or original appealed decision-maker is not independent for the affected matter.
  • Compensation may support serious review but cannot depend on approving, rejecting, or softening a conclusion.
  • Downloading a packet, attending an event, appearing on this map, or expressing interest creates no appointment, relationship, endorsement, or authority.

Open calibration packets Inspect all queues Explore leadership pathways

Prepared staffing map; no recruitment, appointment, or human review has started · Owner-alpha foundation · Independent review pending · Suggest a correction

Accountability record

How to inspect this page

Scope: GShips page /review/staffing

Page citations and accountability links

  • Independent-review packet index
    Machine-readable Academy, claim, and collection review queues · internal accountability record
  • Open review queue
    Record-level review state, path, scope, and high-consequence flags · internal accountability record
  • Editorial policy
    Reviewer selection, conflicts, decisions, dissent, correction, and publication gate · internal accountability record

Assumptions and limits

  • The page prepares bounded human review and does not appoint, qualify, or record any reviewer.
  • AI assistance, downloads, comments, attendance, prestige, and silence do not satisfy independent-review requirements.

What would change this page?

Staffed governance, appointed qualified reviewers, completed record-level decisions, published conflicts, minority findings, corrections, or changed review policy would change this page.

People, review, and conflicts

Prepared by
GShips Project
Editorial status
public-alpha accountability pass
Editorial reviewer
GShips Project AI-assisted editorial synthesis
Last editorial review
2026-07-26
Independent review
pending
Independent reviewer
No independent reviewer assigned
Last independent review
No independent-review date exists
Last content edit
2026-07-25

Declared conflicts

  • The maintainer intends to explore a commercial venture based on some GShips work. No entity, outside funding, customer, sponsor, or indexed-organization relationship currently exists.

Suggest a correction to this page