CB.8:4.5 - Make appeal and correction possible

Offer a review route proportionate to the decision’s consequence. Explain the grounds that can change it, such as relevant new facts, mistaken application of a rule, an excessive response or a conflict in the original judgement. Provide the person with enough reason to formulate the request and a route they can still reach.

Have a suitably authorised person who can reconsider the case examine the challenge. For a consequential disputed judgement, obtain someone other than the challenged decision-maker. The original moderator can supply their reasoning and evidence while the reviewer makes the reconsideration. CB.13 establishes who can fulfil that function if the arrangement is missing or contested.

Compare the decision with the relevant rule, facts and protected interests. The outcome may retain, change or reverse it, or return a missing inquiry. Explain the result and any further route that actually exists. Repeated identical submissions need not reopen settled facts indefinitely; a material new fact or a newly established conflict can reopen the affected question.

Correct what the mistake changed. Restore appropriate access, remove an unsupported public implication, revise an incorrect record and inform the people who relied on it. Restoring a post does not require redisclosing private material; provide a corrected permitted version when necessary.

Where return after a justified restriction is offered, agree the next expected conduct and support from the participation problem that led to it. Obtain the authorised access or activity change and inspect the next participation against that expectation. Retain the original reason where it still holds; a useful return need not reverse the earlier judgement. If access ends, state the scope and settle remaining practical matters through the applicable arrangements.