Review Severity
Needs Review
Last updated
The second of the four review severity levels our rule engine emits. It marks something a person should look at before the record or protocol is relied on: a field missing where a rule expected one, a value that is unusual without being impossible, or a conflict the engine can detect but cannot resolve. It is a request for human judgement, not a verdict on safety. The levels and the rules that emit them are set out at /evidence/rubric.
Flagged for specialist review
This entry describes something contested, or asserts a detail we have not been able to confirm against a settled source. It is published rather than withheld, with the flag visible, because an entry you can weigh beats a gap you cannot see.
Why it matters here
This is the level that most often lands on the fields recorded as not on file, because the rule noticed the gap rather than letting a blank pass unremarked.
What it is not
Needs Review is not a warning about a compound: it is a statement about our data, or about a protocol as entered, and it fires as readily on a well-established compound with a missing field as on an obscure one. Its absence is also not confirmation that a record is complete.
Also called
- review
- needs review
- check
Compounds carrying this term
None on file yet. This term is in the controlled vocabulary but no compound record currently uses it — which is a statement about our coverage, not about the term.