## The reviewed level, and the people who run it

The top level is the one thing on this site that is somebody's time rather than a pipeline, and until
today the site said almost nothing about it: no workflow, no expectation on either side, and no name.
A brief arrived asking for both halves — what the service is, and who does it — and this is them.
It is registered as [D11](briefs.html).

**[The reviewed level](abp-reviewed.html) is the service, written down before it has been sold.** Eight
steps in order, each saying whose move it is: read a published example free, buy at the store and pick
your reviewer, a person replies within a day, half an hour to find out what is actually running, the
vault built from the interview rather than from a form, the reviewer's correction committed with a note
of what changed and why, half an hour to walk through what came back, and a sign-off file carrying a
name and a date. Beside it, what we ask of you — an hour, two people, a list of what the agent connects
to — and what we never ask for: credentials, access, a scan, or your data. Every figure on the page
names the page it was read off and the date, and the page opens by saying that **nobody has bought one
yet** and the payment link has not been issued: the store's own page said so when it was read on
22 September 2026.

**[Who runs your review](reviewers.html) is the list, and the rule that goes with it.** Choosing the
reviewer is part of buying this level, and the choice is made on facts rather than on a rating: nobody
here is scored, ranked or starred, and nobody will be. What is published about a person is what that
person has published themselves — cited, with the date it was read — or what they write for us and sign
off, marked as theirs. A reviewer with no published page gets no rows. There are no testimonials
anywhere on the site, because there is no real one to publish; when there is, it will carry a name, a
date and permission.

**Two pages, one of which is not a person.** [The first
reviewer](reviewer-dinis-cruz.html) is built from three published sources — the author pages on
sgit.ai and open-source.sgit.ai, and the store's own page for the same person — with the interests
declared on the page rather than in a footer. [The second](reviewer-ciso-xyz.html) is a **labelled
placeholder**: the shape a reviewer page takes, so that the next professional can read exactly what
would be published about them before agreeing to any of it. It says so in the eyebrow, in a note at the
top, on its card in the list and in the manifest. Nobody is described on it.

**One source, because two sites publish about the same living person.** The store's `/who/` pages
carry the same rule, written first there; the risk is not the rule but the copy. So the reviewers are a
generated family from one file each under `site/reviewers/`, and
[reviewers.json](reviewers.json) publishes the same data as a manifest for the store's chooser to
build from. `build-reviewer-pages.mjs` writes the pages and the manifest, refuses to render a row whose
source is not declared, and now runs in CI and in `npm run check`. The arrangement is written up for
the store team as [a brief of its own](admin/briefs/workflow__the-reviewer-manifest-and-who-owns-a-person-page/),
including the one thing a chooser must do: never offer `kind: placeholder` as an option.

**Pricing is a group now:** the four levels, the reviewed level, and who runs it.

**What the brief asked for and has not got** is on the register beside what it did: a second named
reviewer, the chooser at checkout, comments and testimonials, any published availability — and what the
reviewer is paid, which was agreed in the brief and deliberately not published. A commercial term, and
the lead's call rather than ours.