The essence of this text
The screen answers “why is this record in this state?” before the number can carry meaning through its scope, evidence and open blockers.
This living guide brings together the public DÇM sources and publishable decisions from the working notebook. It explains the method, version difference and verified lessons rather than republishing raw development records or personal data; the reference PDF remains unchanged in Turkish.
Bound the contribution event first
Assessment does not begin until the contributor, period, primary scope, contribution type and concrete resource or output are described. This event record becomes the common reference that stops the same work from returning under different names.
Direct rights, common contribution and common funds must then close at 100 per cent. If the contracted work is unclear, or the same part appears as both pay and common contribution, the laboratory does not let the calculation advance.
Open one dimension at a time; do not confuse evidence with score
Work, risk, value created and continuity appear as four expandable sections rather than one long wall of controls. Every criterion receives 0–5 or a reasoned Not Applicable choice, together with a short explanation, evidence-confidence level and optional evidence link.
One fact may support more than one criterion only when each use describes a different observable effect. “Five hours of work” does not by itself create separate scores for time, opportunity loss, value and continuity. A duplication warning never erases a score silently; it sends the record to review.
Two blind reviews and a difference check
The primary and independent reviewer do not see each other’s first-round scores. A difference of 0–1 on one criterion may be a natural range; a difference of 2 or more, a Not Applicable versus 3–5 conflict, or more than 10 points between total proposals requires reconciliation.
A proposal above 80, major economic effect, a founder or coordinator assessing their own record, safety or legal risk, an open objection, unresolved duplication or conflicting evidence requires a third review. These are DÇM‑0.3 laboratory thresholds and may change through versioned field calibration.
Justice Gates are not checkboxes
The four gates cover economic separation, double-counting, impartial evidence-based assessment, and participant visibility and objection. Each carries a status—waiting, reviewing, passed, passed with a safeguard, blocked or reopened—plus its responsible role, date, reasons, evidence and next action.
When the first three gates and applicable protective checks pass, a record may be ready as a provisional proposal. It cannot be ready for finalisation until the contributor has seen it and the objection period has closed or an objection has received a reasoned decision. Important new information reopens the relevant gate; the previous outcome is not deleted.
Read the result state correctly
Routed means the value belongs in a direct-right or common-fund channel and therefore produces no contribution score. Draft means evidence, reviews or gates are incomplete. Provisional proposal awaits participant visibility and objection closure. Ready for finalisation means only that the engine’s requirements are complete.
The laboratory shows the reasons, blockers and required next action before highlighting a score. In no state does the screen itself announce a person’s right, income or the community’s final decision.
Read this guide together with the related current surface.
Open the laboratory inside the member app ↗Reflect together
Beyond a score, which information must you see to understand why an assessment is in its current state?
Form your own answer first. Then identify where explanation, objection or a new practical test is needed.
Bring your note into the app ↗Dayanisma_Cemberi_Motoru_Kulliyat_0_3.pdf
Practice guide · DÇM‑0.3 / CAL‑001
Authored English web guide: 6 September 2026.
The public Turkish PDF remains unchanged; publishable decisions from the living record are updated in this guide.