Peer Review

QuestLore uses a peer review workflow to validate quest completions. When a member finishes a quest and submits it for review, one or more reviewers are assigned to evaluate the work. Each quest has a Required Reviewers setting (1, 2, or 3) that controls how many independent reviewers must participate before a final outcome is reached.

This process ensures quality, creates a culture of accountability, and gives senior employees and managers an opportunity to mentor their colleagues through structured feedback.

QuestLore assigns reviewers automatically using a priority-based fallback algorithm. The system tries to find the most contextually relevant reviewer and broadens its search if no eligible candidate is found at each step:

1. A colleague in the same department whose Experience Points level is equal to or higher than the submitter's — prioritising peer review within the team.
2. A manager in the same department with a sufficient Experience Points level.
3. Any employee in the organisation with an Experience Points level equal to or higher than the submitter's.
4. Any manager in the organisation with a sufficient Experience Points level.
5. Any manager in the organisation — regardless of level.
6. Any owner in the organisation — the final human fallback.
7. No reviewer available — if no eligible reviewer is found at any step, the quest cannot be submitted for review. The member sees an error and should contact their manager.

When multiple eligible reviewers exist at a given step, one is selected at random. The algorithm runs once per required reviewer slot — each slot receives a different randomly-selected reviewer so that all assigned reviewers are distinct. Managers can also manually override the assigned reviewer on any submission.

When a quest requires 1 reviewer, the assigned reviewer's decision is immediate and final:

• Approved — Experience Points and Coins are credited to the member; the reviewer earns their Experience Points bonus.
• Changes Requested — The member must update their submission and resubmit.
• Rejected — The submission is closed. No Experience Points or Coins are awarded.

This is the simplest flow. There is no conflict resolution or arbitration step.

When a quest requires 2 reviewers, both are assigned at submission time and evaluate the work independently. Neither reviewer can see the other's identity or decision until the review cycle closes (blind review).

Unanimous outcome — when both reviewers reach the same decision, it is applied immediately:

• Both approve → quest is approved; Experience Points, Coins, and reviewer bonuses are credited.
• Both reject → quest is rejected.
• Both request changes → quest returns to in-progress for the member to resubmit.

Conflicting outcome — when the two reviewers disagree (one approves while the other rejects or requests changes), the quest enters Under Arbitration status and an arbiter is automatically assigned. See the Arbitration section for the full details.

When a quest requires 3 reviewers, all three are assigned at submission time and evaluate the work independently (blind review — reviewers cannot see each other's identities or decisions until the cycle closes).

Changes requested takes priority — if any of the three reviewers requests changes, the quest returns to in-progress regardless of the other two decisions. The member must update their submission and resubmit.

Majority vote decides approve vs. reject when no reviewer requests changes: 2 of 3 approvals → approved; 2 of 3 rejections → rejected.

• Reviewers who voted with the majority are rewarded with review points and their Experience Points bonus.
• The reviewer who voted against the majority receives a review points deduction.

No arbitration step is needed for 3-reviewer quests because a majority outcome is always reachable.

Arbitration is triggered exclusively for 2-reviewer quests when the two reviewers give conflicting decisions. The quest status changes to Under Arbitration, which is visible to the submitter, both original reviewers, and the arbiter.

An arbiter is a manager or owner who was not the submitter and was not one of the original two reviewers. The system assigns one automatically. If no eligible arbiter exists in the organisation, the quest is auto-rejected.

The arbiter sees the full submission and both reviewers' decisions. The arbiter can approve or reject only — "changes requested" is not available at this stage. The arbiter's decision is final and applied immediately.

Outcome for the original reviewers:

• The reviewer whose decision matched the arbiter's is considered correct and receives a review points reward plus an Experience Points bonus.
• The reviewer whose decision differed from the arbiter's receives a review points deduction.
• The arbiter receives review points and an Experience Points bonus for their work.

Reviewers are rewarded for their time and mentorship. When a reviewer approves a quest submission, they receive a bonus equal to 5% of the Experience Points that the submitting member earned for that quest.

This bonus is added to the reviewer's total Experience Points and may trigger a level-up for them. Reviewer Experience Points bonus is only awarded for approved outcomes — it is not granted for rejections or changes-requested decisions.

A quest submission can be in one of five states during its review lifecycle:

• Review Requested — The member has submitted their work and is awaiting the reviewer's decision.
• Approved — The reviewer (or majority of reviewers) has accepted the submission. Experience Points and Coins are credited to the member (and Experience Points bonus to the reviewer).
• Changes Requested — The reviewer has provided feedback and the member must update their submission before it can be approved.
• Rejected — The reviewer (or majority) has rejected the submission. No Experience Points or Coins are awarded. The member may re-attempt the quest if it is configured as repeatable.
• Under Arbitration — Two reviewers gave conflicting decisions on a 2-reviewer quest. A third-party arbiter (manager or owner) has been assigned to make the final call. See the Arbitration section for details.

Reviewers see all pending review requests in My Quests → Review Requests. Each request displays:

• The quest title and difficulty
• The submitting member's name
• The member's written work description and any attachments

The reviewer can approve the submission, request changes with written feedback, or reject it. All review actions are logged in the quest's Review Timeline, which is visible to both the submitter and the reviewer for full transparency.