Diligence layer visible.
This page answers the next reviewer questions without exposing private records, user access data, programme evidence, SQL credentials, or protected operational controls.
Public institutional reviewer response pack
Tier‑1 reviewer response pack.
A public, procurement-safe response pack for the questions ministries, DFIs, climate funds, MDBs, donors, auditors, and government reviewers are likely to ask after the first walkthrough. It maps the likely ask to Terra Vita Hub’s governance answer and to the diligence route where record-level evidence can be inspected after access is granted.
Decision support only.
The Hub structures evidence, access, notification, MRV attachment, export posture, and audit reconstruction. It does not grant statutory authority, approve funding, replace procurement rules, override institutional committees, provide investment advice, rate investments, or manage portfolios.
Public architecture, protected evidence.
The answers below are intentionally public. Record-level inspection, admin actions, detailed audit trails, live workspace evidence, personal data, and reviewer actions remain protected and role-bound. No live programme records are exposed publicly.
Tier-1 reviewer asks
Controlled response matrix
Each item gives reviewers a procurement-safe answer and then points them to the correct next diligence route. Public architecture stays public; record-level proof remains protected.
Show the RLS schema in more detail
Reviewer concern: whether sensitive routes are truly separated.
Controlled answer
RLS is treated as a deployment hardening layer. Sensitive tables should follow self-read, assigned-workspace, assigned-programme, reviewer, and admin-read patterns. Broad read policies should remain temporary only during stability testing and be removed after regression QA.
Show the audit reconstruction pathway
Reviewer concern: whether a decision can be reconstructed months later.
Controlled answer
Audit reconstruction runs from source evidence → reviewer action → conditions or override → notification/event → committee/export posture. The audit view should show actor, timestamp, route, source request, workspace, programme context, role, reason, and final posture.
Diligence route
Show the MRV attachment logic per sector
Reviewer concern: whether MRV is generic or sector-specific.
Controlled answer
MRV attachment remains context-bound. Agriculture, climate, coastal/marine, mining, and programme instances carry sector-relevant methodologies, indicators, evidence objects, validation status, and reporting outputs without Terra Vita replacing national MRV authority.
Diligence route
Show the export posture controls
Reviewer concern: whether export packs imply approval.
Controlled answer
Export packs reflect governance posture only. Release gates, open conditions, evidence maps, reviewer questions, share expiry, and committee-pack completeness must be visible before anything is treated as committee-ready.
Diligence route
Show the reviewer override logic
Reviewer concern: whether exceptions are hidden or automated.
Controlled answer
Overrides are human, attributable, and inspectable. They should record the reviewer, reason, source record, condition, risk posture, programme/project context, and whether the override is accepted, escalated, rejected, or left as an open condition.
Diligence route
Show the data residency configuration options
Reviewer concern: hosting region, ownership, retention, and export control.
Controlled answer
Data residency is configured per deployment based on hosting region, institutional ownership boundary, access-policy governance, retention posture, export constraints, and local programme requirements. The Hub does not claim a single global sovereignty answer for all deployments.
Diligence route
Show the deployment isolation model
Reviewer concern: cross-tenant leakage and programme mixing.
Controlled answer
Deployments should separate public pages, protected workspaces, programme instances, workspace assignments, RLS-visible data, exports, and external shares. Programme instances route through the programme environment with explicit context rather than becoming separate environments.
Diligence route
Show the programme lifecycle schema
Reviewer concern: whether programme states are governed.
Controlled answer
Programme lifecycle should move from intake → source evidence → team/access assignment → actions/meetings → MRV and TV-CRI interpretation → funding posture → export/data room → committee-ready output, with exceptions and conditions held as visible states.
Diligence route
Show the evidence lineage replay
Reviewer concern: whether the Hub can replay evidence-to-decision history.
Controlled answer
Lineage replay starts with the evidence object and follows attachment, source metadata, reviewer action, linked document, MRV indicator, TV-CRI signal, funding condition, notification, export state, and final committee posture.
Show the procurement-safe boundary
Reviewer concern: whether the platform influences procurement decisions improperly.
Controlled answer
Procurement-safe use means the Hub supports evidence organization, review routing, risk posture, auditability, and export readiness. It does not select vendors, award contracts, bypass procurement rules, or replace statutory and fiduciary decisions.
Diligence route
Show the responsibility split and public boundary
Reviewer concern: whether operating support blurs authority, liability, or public access boundaries.
Controlled answer
Institutions retain responsibility for programme design, legal compliance, procurement, approved methodologies, and final decisions. Terra Vita Hub is responsible for the governed operation of the evidence and reviewer environment as contracted. Contractual responsibility and liability allocation is governed by the applicable agreement and institutional mandate.
Diligence route
Reviewer expectations
What reviewers should test next.
Confirm that public pages explain governance logic only and do not expose live evidence, reviewer identity, personal data, or operational records.
After access is granted, request a route-based demonstration of evidence lineage, reviewer actions, notification events, export posture, and audit reconstruction.
Ask for the deployment isolation model, data residency configuration, MRV attachment note, and export posture controls for the specific institution or programme.
Walkthrough sequence
Recommended Tier‑1 diligence sequence
Start with the public governance architecture.
Show the reviewer that the Hub is a controlled decision environment, not a dashboard and not an approval substitute.
Use this response pack to answer the first control questions.
Address RLS, audit, MRV, export, override, residency, isolation, lifecycle, lineage, and procurement boundaries before moving into live workspaces.
Move into the protected walkthrough only after a named purpose exists.
Record-level inspection, admin actions, programme evidence, notification logs, and export packs remain role-bound.
Close with the authority boundary.
Repeat that Terra Vita Hub supports authorised institutional decision-making; it does not replace ministries, DFIs, statutory authority, procurement bodies, or committees.