# India Water Canvas — Review Log

This log records the public review process for the India Water Canvas. Three review tiers operate in parallel:

1. **Methodology review** — one-time per major version. Named external technical reviewers approve the H/A/I derivation formula, the capture-envelope quantification, the funder-ladder construction, and the feedback-loop diagnosis before each major release.
2. **Continuous community review** — open-issue model on the parent GitHub repository. Every claim has an "open issue" link. Author commits to a 14-day initial response on every issue. Closed issues archived for transparency.
3. **Quarterly version review** — every 90 days, author + at least 2 named reviewers walk through the artefact. Changelog records: what changed, why, who reviewed, who dissented.

Reviewer perspectives — including dissent — are recorded publicly when offered.

---

## v1.0 — Released 2026-05-07

**Author:** Ashwin Kulkarni (independent capacity)

**Methodology approval status:** Pending. Invitations open. The artefact is published as v1.0 with the methodology marked clearly as author-judgment-pending-review.

**Reviewer invitations open** (suggested by `still-missing.md`, suggested by `build-plan.md`):

| Reviewer | Domain | Status | Date invited | Date responded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mihir Shah | Basin governance · former Planning Commission · Mihir Shah Committee 2016 | Invitation pending | TBD | — |
| Aditi Mukherji | Climate + groundwater · IWMI alumna | Invitation pending | TBD | — |
| Veena Srinivasan | Water hydrology · ATREE | Invitation pending | TBD | — |
| Himanshu Thakkar | Dam + river systems · SANDRP | Invitation pending | TBD | — |
| Rohini Nilekani | Philanthropy · Arghyam founder | Optional invitation | TBD | — |
| ATECF leadership | Tank rejuvenation · public-works model | Optional invitation | TBD | — |
| WELL Labs leadership | Open-data basin work | Optional invitation | TBD | — |

**Community review at v1.0 release:**
- 0 open issues at release
- 0 closed issues
- 0 disputed claims

**Disputed claims:** None at release. New disputes recorded as they arise via GitHub issues.

**Reviewer dissent recorded:** None at release. New dissent recorded with date + reviewer + claim + author response.

---

## Review process discipline

**For methodology review:**
- The H/A/I formula at `Water/methodology.html` is the canonical document. Reviewers comment on it specifically.
- Author records each reviewer's accept / dissent / abstain position with date.
- A reviewer's "method-approved" sign-off counts as a strong endorsement of the artefact's evidentiary basis. A "method-dissent" position is recorded prominently both here and in the dashboard's MEASUREMENT section.
- Disagreements are preserved publicly. Author does not select reviewers to confirm priors; dissent is a feature, not a failure.

**For community review:**
- Issue templates: `correction · methodology-question · source-update · dispute · suggestion`
- Author response: 14-day commitment (calendar days)
- Resolution paths: accept (artefact updated → erratum logged) · disagree (response posted, issue stays open for further dispute) · escalate (call for methodology-reviewer input)

**For quarterly version review:**
- Cadence: every 90 days
- Participants: author + ≥2 named reviewers (rotating from the methodology-review pool + new invitees)
- Output: short report appended to this log + decision on whether to bump version

**For erratum:** When an issue resolves to "accept and correct", the change is recorded in `erratum.md` with the date, what changed, what the source was, and which audience it most affected.

**Conflict of interest in review:** Reviewers are asked to disclose any direct or recent funding relationship with any actor named in the artefact (funder, NGO, agency). Disclosed conflicts are noted alongside their review feedback.

---

## How to contribute as a reviewer

1. Open an issue at the parent repository titled `[Methodology Review] <your-name>`
2. State which sections you intend to review (full artefact, or specific axis / loop / region)
3. Author confirms within 7 days; provides the methodology document + spreadsheet for review
4. Reviewer submits feedback in the same issue thread
5. Author responds within 14 days; records position in this log
6. If disagreement persists, dissent recorded under your name in `still-missing.md` (preserved for future versions)

The review process is itself part of the public-good commitment. Reviewers' time is acknowledged in citations and in this log.