ATAL Public Peer Review Process

Public Review Draft v0.9

---

1. Purpose

This document defines the rules and process for public peer review of the ATAL Standard.
The goal is to ensure transparency, global participation, and broad scrutiny while maintaining the integrity of the nine-Part structure.

When reviewing ATAL, evaluate it as a technical accountability and traceability specification focused on externally observable AI behavior. For scope boundaries and non-goals, refer to the Specification section ‘IMPORTANT SCOPE AND NON-GOALS OF ATAL’.

Peer review feedback may propose clarifications, corrections, or extensions within the declared scope of ATAL. Feedback seeking to transform ATAL into a governance, ethics, or policy framework will be considered out of scope.

---

2. Scope

The peer review process applies to:

• all supporting documents
• the full ATAL Specification (v0.9)
• proposed issues, clarifications, and corrections

It does not apply to:

• pull request submissions
• implementation-specific discussions
• vendor or product debates

All peer review feedback must be submitted as GitHub Issues.

---

3. Review Window

• ATAL v0.9 is open for public review for 30 days.
• All issues submitted within the window are considered.
• Issues submitted after the window may be deferred to the next release cycle.

The Steward determines the opening and closing dates.

---

4. How to Participate

Step 1 — Read

Start with:

• docs/ATAL_Primer.md
• docs/ATAL_Specification_v0.9.md
• supporting governance documents

Step 2 — File an Issue

Use the GitHub Issue template and include:

• reference to the specific Part or section
• clear description
• rationale
• impact on safety, regulatory alignment, or clarity
• Peer review feedback MUST be submitted via GitHub Issues using the structured “ATAL Peer Review Submission” issue form. Blank issues are disabled to ensure review inputs remain specific, traceable, and triageable. Start a submission

Step 3 — Discuss

Participants may engage in discussions within the Issue.
All discussions must remain professional and on-topic.

Step 4 — Steward Decision

After internal review:

• the Steward accepts, modifies, rejects, or defers the suggestion
• the decision and reasoning are recorded
• changes, if any, are scheduled for release

---

5. Review Criteria

Feedback is evaluated based on:

• clarity and correctness
• alignment with the 0th Law
• consistency across Parts I–IX
• regulatory and safety impact
• contribution to interpretability or auditability
• potential unintended consequences

Submissions that weaken autonomy safeguards or reduce traceability are rejected.

---

6. Prohibited Feedback Types

The following will not be considered:

• pull requests
• undocumented suggestions (no rationale)
• proposals that contradict the 0th Law
• vendor- or implementation-specific requests
• marketing or promotional content
• high-level “rewrite everything” suggestions
• attempts to dilute safety or oversight mechanisms

Issues violating these rules may be closed immediately.

---

7. Transparency Rules

• All Issues are public
• All discussion is archived
• All decisions are explicitly documented
• All accepted changes appear in the next release notes

The standard evolves through visible, auditable processes.

---

8. Finalisation After Review

At the close of the review period:

• all Issues are triaged
• accepted changes are integrated
• release notes are generated
• v1.0 or the next draft is prepared

The Steward publishes the final outcome.

---

9. Status of This Document

This peer review guidance applies to ATAL v0.9 and will be updated for v1.0.

---

End of document.