Quality Control Standards

Review Process

1. All products must be reviewed before moving to "published" status
2. Reviews are performed by the quality-reviewer agent
3. Products with CRITICAL issues are returned for revision
4. Products with 3+ MAJOR issues are returned for revision
5. MINOR issues are noted but don't block publication

Peer Review Checklist

A. Structural Integrity (Weight: 15%)

• Correct product template used
• Complete frontmatter (all required fields)
• TLP marking present and correctly applied
• Logical section ordering
• Appropriate length for product type

B. Analytical Rigor (Weight: 30%)

• Conclusions supported by evidence
• Key assumptions explicitly identified
• Alternative hypotheses considered (where applicable)
• Structured analytic techniques applied appropriately
• No logical leaps or unsupported assertions
• Temporal scope specified for all predictions
• Intelligence gaps acknowledged

C. Sourcing (Weight: 20%)

• All sources assessed with Admiralty Scale
• Source ratings justified and reasonable
• Source diversity (not single-source unless noted)
• Derivative vs independent sources distinguished
• No unattributed claims

D. Mandated Language (Weight: 20%)

• Confidence levels on all assessments (with rationale)
• Likelihood language on all predictions (with percentage ranges)
• No hedge-stacking
• No vague probabilistic language without probability band
• Confidence and likelihood not conflated
• Facts clearly distinguished from assessments

E. Technical Accuracy (Weight: 10%)

• MITRE ATT&CK mappings correct
• IOCs properly formatted and validated
• Technical claims verifiable
• No contradictions with known intelligence

F. Writing Quality (Weight: 5%)

• BLUF in first paragraph
• Active voice
• Specific language (dates, numbers, names)
• No unnecessary jargon
• Clear, concise sentences

Scoring

Calculate weighted score (0-10):

• Each section: 0 (none met) to 10 (all met)
• Weighted by percentages above
• Final score = weighted average

Score	Verdict
8-10	Approved — publish
6-7	Approved with minor revisions — can publish after fixes
4-5	Revision required — significant issues
0-3	Rejected — fundamental problems

Issue Severity

• CRITICAL: Factual error in key finding, missing TLP on sensitive content, unsupported primary conclusion, potential harm if published as-is
• MAJOR: Missing confidence level on assessment, vague likelihood language on prediction, missing source assessment on key evidence, logical flaw in reasoning, missing key section
• MINOR: Grammar/formatting, style inconsistency, minor Admiralty rating disagreement, non-essential section could be improved