Engagement and Review Protocol

Version 1.0. Issued 13 September 2026; adopted 20 September 2026 (LOG-001 D-023, D-026). Status: adopted. Two corrections made at adoption, both named in the plugin brief of 14 September 2026: a doubled word under Publication in section 2, and the second sentence of section 5, which carried the Record's rule rather than the Index's. The contact of record for notices, comments and corrections is stated in section 4. Extends STD-005 (pre-release notice and correction) with the rules for update notice, release notification, the published calendar, state file comment, the two-step review of a declined correction or comment, the service standard, personal data, the public corrections register, retraction, and the funding transparency page. Adopted on the owner's and principal's decisions of 13 September 2026. The model is the one that has kept Inspector General and audit-office reports credible: the body examined comments in its own words, the comment is published in full beside the finding, and the finding is not negotiated.

1. Calendar and notification

The published calendar. The register page of the public site shows, for every jurisdiction in frame, its status, its current released version, the date of its next scheduled re-audit, and the compliance or data-cycle date that re-audit follows, at least ninety days ahead. A body is never surprised by a re-audit, and no body can say it was singled out, because the calendar applies the same rule to every jurisdiction.

Update notice. Every major version under VER-002 is preceded by notice under STD-005 in the same form as first release, with one addition: a delta table listing every coverage code, figure, or frame decision that changed since the prior released version, with its direction and its cause (new artifact, notice response, correction, framework revision, re-audit). The window and the correction rule are unchanged.

Release notification. Within two business days of any release, every body that was noticed for that version is told that the version is live, with the versioned URL, the DOI where one exists, the correction route, and the comment route. A body that did not respond to notice still receives the notification.

2. Body comment

What it is. A statement by a body named in a state file, published on the state page in the body's own words beside the element it concerns, with the Index's response beside it. It exists so that the record carries both what the Index found and what the body says about it, and so that a reader can weigh both.

Scope. A comment attaches to one element: a District Coverage row, a Schools and Programs row, a state indicator, a fiscal line, an operator-silence count, the frame statement, or the deaf and blind boundary decision. It does not attach to the state file at large. A body may comment on as many elements as it likes, within a limit of three hundred words per element and one thousand five hundred words per version.

Who may comment. The body's authorized contact, verified against the contact the body itself publishes for the role, or a person the authorized contact names in writing. A comment is attributed by role ("Comment by the district's director of special education"), and by name only where the body asks for the name to appear.

When. During the notice window, and at any time after release through the standing comment route on the site. A comment received during the window is published with the release; a comment received after release is published within ten business days of receipt as a dated addendum to the version it concerns.

Publication. A comment is published verbatim. The only edits are the redaction of personal data under section 5 and the removal of material that is defamatory of a third party, and each redaction is marked in place. A comment is labeled "Comment by [body], received [date]" and shown under the element it concerns. The Index's response is limited to three things: the status of any artifact the comment identifies (retrieved and coded, not found at the URL given, not published on the body's presence), the coverage code, figure, or frame decision (unchanged, changed at version X.Y), and the reason in one or two sentences. The response contains no argument, no characterization of the comment, and no description of the firm's services. A comment may say anything within its scope, including that the body considers itself to comply with a law; the statement is the body's, is labeled as such, and does not change what the Index says, and the word checks that bind the Index's own prose do not apply to a quoted comment.

What a comment does not do. It does not change a coverage code, figure, or frame decision; only a published artifact does that, under STD-005. It does not delay a release. It is not consent and its absence is not acquiescence.

Custody. Comments are not part of the immutable release package. They are dated addenda keyed to the version, held in the site's comment record and in the state's 04_Verification, carried forward to the next version's page, and listed in the corrections register at section 6. A comment declined for publication is logged with the reason: not from an authorized contact, outside scope, personal data that cannot be redacted without emptying the comment, or defamation of a third party. Disagreement with the Index is never a reason.

3. Two-step review of a declined correction or comment

Step one. When a correction request under STD-005 is declined, or a comment is declined for publication, the compiler of the state file gives the decision and its reasons in writing within ten business days of the request, and the decision is entered in the corrections register.

Step two. Within ten business days of that decision the body may ask for review. The review is decided by the other principal of the firm; where the other principal compiled the state file or has declared a relationship with the body, by a reviewer who has filed a declaration under GOV-004 Rule 4 and had no part in the state file. The reviewer re-decides the question on the record as it stands, within ten business days, and publishes the outcome and the reasons beside the step-one decision. The reviewer may uphold, reverse, or vary the decision; a reversal that changes a coverage code, figure, or frame decision produces a new version under VER-002.

The advisory view. The body or the reviewer may refer a step-two outcome to the method advisory group at GOV-005, which may publish a non-binding view on the method question it raises. The view is published beside the outcome and is taken up, where the group recommends a change to a framework or a normalization, at the next version of that document under LOG-001.

Nothing further. There is no third step, because a documentary record is not a tribunal; the record shows the request, the decision, the review, the reasons, and the body's comment, and the reader judges.

4. Service standard

Acknowledgement of any notice response, correction request, or comment within two business days. A decision on a correction request within ten business days. The notice window: ten business days. Release notification within two business days of release. The re-audit calendar published at least ninety days ahead. A comment received after release published within ten business days. An "as of" date on every figure, every coverage code, figure, or frame decision, and every page. Where the standard is missed, the register at section 6 records it.

The contact of record. Every notice, every acknowledgement, every decision and every published correction route names the same two addresses, fixed by the owner on 20 September 2026 (LOG-001 D-033): the mailbox notice@ndedi.org, and the postal address Novara Consulting Group LLC, 18140 Zane St NW #159, Elk River, MN 55330. The mailbox is the route a notice is sent from and a response is sent to; the postal address is the address of record for a body that responds by post. Neither carries a description of the firm's services (GOV-004 Rule 6). The build scripts carry both as constants and print them on the report's closing page.

5. Personal data

The Index documents institutions, not people. A person's name appears only where the body itself publishes it for the public role the Index records, and only with the role. On request from the person or the body the name is replaced by the role, without any change to the coverage code, figure, or frame decision, because the change of a name to a role changes nothing the file records. Notices, notifications, and responses go to office contacts. Comments are attributed by role. No personal contact detail beyond those the body publishes for the role is recorded, and evidence captures that contain personal data beyond that are held in the repository under SRC-003 and are not republished.

6. The public corrections register

The site carries a public register, one row per request and outcome: date received, state, version, element, type (notice response, correction request, comment, review request), outcome (changed, unchanged, published, declined with reason, upheld, reversed, varied), the version issued if any, and the dates against the service standard. An annual summary is published with each cycle's rollup: the number of released state files, the number changed after release, the elements changed by direction, requests received, reviews requested and their outcomes, and the service-standard figures. A record that publishes its own error rate is trusted more, not less.

7. Retraction

A released state file found to be materially wrong is never deleted and never silently replaced. A retraction notice is placed at the permanent URL of the affected version stating what was wrong, when it was found, and how, with a link to the corrected version, which is issued under VER-002 with the changelog cause "retraction". The deposit is updated with the corrected version and the retraction recorded in the DOI's version history. The register at section 6 carries the retraction, and every body noticed for the affected version is notified.

8. Funding transparency

The site carries a funding page, updated at each cycle and whenever a relationship begins or ends, listing every State Partner and funder by name, every licensee category with the number of licensees in each, and every commissioned build, with amounts shown in bands. The page repeats GOV-004 Rule 5 in full: no funder, partner, or licensee has editorial input, and each may propose corrections only through the routes in this protocol on the same terms as anyone else.

9. Accessibility of the process

Every notice, notification, form, and register is accessible and available in plain language, and a signed-language summary of this protocol and of the notice text is published on the site, because the Index's own conduct is held to the standard it records.

10. What the protocol is not

It is not a right of reply to an evaluation, because the Index makes none; it is a right to be heard on the record. It is not an appeal court. It is not consent: a body's comment, objection, or silence does not prevent release or re-audit. And it is not a sales channel; under GOV-004 Rule 6 nothing sent under this protocol describes the firm's services.