Mentor / Advisor Review
A guided front door for people who have questions, expertise, or useful friction to bring to the project.
You don't need to know what you are supposed to think.
This page is designed to let your response determine the review path. Choose what you are interested in, what you are willing to examine, or simply where something caught your attention. You can change paths at any time.
The request is not "approve this." We are looking for observations, questions, boundaries, contradictions, and things that should be tested next.
Paid expert review: scope, compensation & sequence
How this review round works
This is paid expert review, not an open-ended volunteer request. Each reviewer will receive a written scope before beginning, including the lane being reviewed, the questions to examine, what evidence or experience is relevant, the expected deliverable, time boundary, compensation, and how the feedback will be used.
First gates: Safety / community care and Accessibility. The accessibility lane should include relevant lived experience where possible; the safety lane should be reviewed by someone qualified to stress-test participatory consent, boundaries, facilitation, and community-care assumptions.
In parallel: Rights / provenance can proceed as document review. Next: Game / system design and Participant / host experience. Then: Replication / facilitation. Last: Claims / evidence.
No reviewer is represented as confirmed until they have explicitly agreed to the scope. Review feedback does not establish endorsement, affiliation, clinical validation, authorship, or permission to use another person's work.
1 · Where do you want to enter?
Your review route
2 · Before you review
Ask for problems before prescribing solutions. "I got lost here" is useful evidence. "Add X" may be useful later, but first tell us what you observed and why it matters.
3 · Observe → Question → Protect / Change
Use these prompts in whatever order helps. You may answer one, several, or none. This form does not submit data to a server. Keep a copy before leaving; responses are not saved. GitHub issues are public—leave out personal health information and private contact details.
What your review can influence
- Gameplay / system: next paper-playtest iteration, rule clarification, balance tests, or deferred mechanics.
- Participant / host: front-door language, facilitator materials, and replication documentation.
- Safety / community care: boundaries, escalation procedures, resource language, and external qualified review.
- Accessibility: interface, format, pacing, alternative participation modes, and documentation.
- Rights / provenance: permissions, attribution, governance, correction, withdrawal, and adaptation rules.
- Replication / facilitation: host packet, staffing assumptions, materials, localization, and operational questions.
- Claims / evidence: wording of claims, hypotheses, success measures, and what evidence must exist before release.
Feedback does not itself establish endorsement, affiliation, authorship, clinical validation, or permission to use another person's work.
What this project is not
This is an arts-and-engagement prototype. It is not therapy, diagnosis, medical advice, crisis care, or clinical research. Participation is voluntary; reviewers are not being asked to disclose personal health information.
Event-specific operational details remain proposals until independently verified. Review of the event concept is different from operational approval of an event.