How Scenius keeps findings trustworthy

Scenius is governed by a small set of concrete, enforceable rules that live in the platform itself. They exist so that findings published on Scenius can be defended: by the sponsoring institution, by the researchers, and by the participants whose input produced them.

The four rules that make findings credible

• Attribution is preserved. Every contribution attaches to a user account. Even when displayed anonymously, the record exists for audit.
• Human review before publishing.AI can draft findings, but every draft passes through an owner or admin review. Nothing labeled “published” was generated without a human in the loop.
• Sponsors do not author findings. Institutions set scope through Advisory intake; they do not draft, edit, or approve the synthesis.
• Scope and representativeness are explicit. Every report includes a methodology section, a limitations section, and a representativeness statement — either an explicit claim or the default disclaimer that no such claim is made.

Roles

Scenius uses a small role vocabulary. Backend authorization enforces every action.

• Contributor — anyone with an account. Contributes to research projects visible to them.
• Project owner — the person or organization responsible for a specific research project. Configures scope, reviews contributions, drafts and publishes findings, composes reports.
• Organization owner / admin— a role scoped to a sponsoring organization. Can create research on behalf of the org and manage the org’s research portfolio.
• Platform admin — Scenius staff. Handles Advisory intake approvals, cross-project moderation, and platform-level governance interventions.

Moderation

Moderation is bounded and visible.

• Contributions can be hidden or removed for clear violations of the participation guidelines.
• Removal is logged. Records are retained for audit; content is not silently rewritten.
• Moderation targets behavior (bad-faith engagement, harassment, abuse of the participation system) — not viewpoint.

Publishing checks

The platform enforces the publishing rules directly, not by policy alone.

• Findings can only be published from human_reviewed or approved state — never directly from a draft or from an AI-generated record.
• Reports can only be published from approved. Publishing freezes the artifact.
• A published finding or report cannot be silently edited. Fixes require a new revision.

When governance intervenes

Interventions happen when the platform’s core commitments are threatened:

• A sponsor attempts to author or edit findings.
• A research project’s scope is quietly rewritten mid-flight.
• Contribution patterns suggest coordinated bad-faith participation.
• A published report’s claims exceed what the participation actually supports.

Interventions are logged, reversible where possible, and visible to affected participants.

Adaptation

The rules evolve. As Scenius runs more research, we learn what protections are missing and what checks are excessive. When a rule changes, the reasoning is stated and the impact on active research is explicit.