REVIEW Center — the reviewer's space
01In a nutshell #sec_e9a398cd
The REVIEW Center is where a person reviews the accesses they are responsible for and makes decisions — the only place in the product where a review decision can be made.
02The problem #sec_bf33f90c
A recertification campaign is addressed to people whose job it is not. A team leader, a site owner, a service manager receives a list of accesses to validate in the middle of their real work. Three pitfalls await them, and they reinforce each other:
The volume. Eighty lines presented flat, without hierarchy, mechanically produce mass processing. The person checks everything, and the campaign shows a perfect rate that proves nothing.
The lack of context. "Does Marie have access to the Finances site: is it legitimate?" is a question that cannot be answered without knowing where this access comes from, since when, by which group, and who else has it.
The absence of an exit. When you don't know, you must be able to not decide alone. Without an exit door, the only practicable option is to certify — that is, to lie politely.
The REVIEW Center is built against these three pitfalls.
03The approach #sec_333ec305
A review decision commits the person who makes it. The screen must therefore give them what they need to make it.
1. Displayed priority, not suffered. The work queue is ordered and filterable by what matters: what is overdue, what is not compliant, what is contested. The compliance score is visible on each line. The person does not go down a list, they process an agenda.
2. Context is one click away, never in another tool. Each request opens the resource file: origin of access, chain of membership, history of previous decisions, other campaigns that carry the same resource, details of failed compliance criteria.
3. There is always an exit other than "yes". Delegate, escalate, ask for an opinion, set an exception: each is a traced, motivated, and attributed act. Not knowing is useful information; making it disappear in a certification is not.
4. What is not activated does not exist. The options offered depend on the rules of the campaign. A deactivated capability does not appear grayed out: it does not appear.
04The work queue #sec_76cfcbdf
The central screen presents the requests that fall under the person — all of them, regardless of the workspace they come from.
This is a structuring choice: the workspace is an administration dimension, not a work dimension. An owner of resources spread across three sites sees a single queue, and never has to wonder in which scope to look.
Each line carries the resource, the campaign, the deadline, the compliance status, and special signals — contested access, requested deletion. Quick filters, search, sort, configurable columns, and export are available; on large volumes, only the displayed lines are loaded.
05Decisions #sec_7c6f6f78
The vocabulary depends on the type of review, because a property review and a membership review do not ask the same question.
| Type of review | The question asked | Decisions |
|---|---|---|
| Property / compliance | Does this resource comply with the policy? | Certify • Revoke • Exception |
| Membership | Should these people remain in this group? | Keep • Remove, member by member |
A justification is required according to the rules of the campaign, and systematically when the decision deviates from the expected. It is reproduced as is in the audit files and exports: it is the sentence that the auditor will read as that of the reviewer.
Mass decisions exist, but they are not the default path: they require an explicit selection and go through the same justification requirements.
Membership reviews
A group is not certified as a whole. The screen presents the members one by one, grouped by source group when the access comes from several, with for each what is known about their attachment. We keep or remove member by member — it is longer, and it is the only level of granularity at which the decision makes sense.
06Exits other than "yes" #sec_d2ceadbe
| Exit | When | What it produces |
|---|---|---|
| Delegate | Another knows this scope better | A traced delegation cycle — see the [Delegation sheet](REVIEWIT_Feature_Delegation_v1.0.md) |
| Escalate | The question exceeds the reviewer's level | An attributed and dated escalation |
| Consult | An opinion would be enough to decide | A request for advice; the decision remains with the reviewer |
| Exception | The deviation is known and assumed | A motivated decision, counted as such |
| Request deletion | The resource no longer has a place | A request submitted to the workspace, not a deletion |
Consultation deserves a mention: asking for an opinion is not delegating. The reviewer keeps control and accountability; they only get the information they lack. It is the exit door that avoids the most complacent certifications.
07The contestation #sec_2d6fbf4c
When a campaign activates it, a person whose access has been revoked has a period of time — expressed in business days — to contest.
They see what concerns them, the justification for the revocation, and can respond. The reviewer handles the contestation in their own screen. Nothing is automatic: the contestation does not restore access, it reopens the conversation.
It is a device of accuracy as much as justice. A contested and argued revocation is a revocation that would have caused an incident; detecting it during the campaign is infinitely cheaper than discovering it in production.
08What the reviewer finds additionally #sec_301fbecb
- The resource sheet: what it is, who is responsible for it, how it is exposed, its history.
- The chronology of a request: each step, each actor, each date.
- The linked campaigns: the other reviews that involve the same resource — avoids making different decisions twice.
- The compliance detail: which policy criteria are failing, and what was expected.
- The carbon score: the measured effect of withdrawn accesses and deleted resources, based on documented emission factors.
- Their preferences: language, notifications, and personal delegations for their absences.
- RITA: the assistant, for navigation and synthesis questions — never for decision-making. See the [RITA dossier](REVIEWIT_Dossier_RITA_v1.0.md).
09What the REVIEW Center does not do #sec_389b5ac6
- It does not administer anything. No campaign creation, no scope adjustment, no role management: this is the responsibility of the [Workspace Center](REVIEWIT_Chapitre_WorkspaceCenter_v1.0.md).
- It does not decide for you. No pre-decision, no default value on a decision, no automatic suggestion.
- It does not delete anything. A revocation is a review decision; its technical implementation is the responsibility of another device, with its own monitoring.
10To remember #sec_8042a75a
The REVIEW Center is the only surface of the product where a review decision can be born, and everything is organized around this responsibility: visible priority so that attention goes to the right place, immediate context so that the decision is informed, alternative outcomes so that “I don’t know” can be expressed in a way other than checking yes.
A successful campaign is not a 100% campaign. It is a campaign where each decision can be explained by the person who made it, months later, without having to remember it.