Validation
This page covers both halves of validation: the review workflow as you perform it in the application, and the governance principles that shape how that review should be run. The second half is not a set of buttons — it is the context the buttons sit in.
The Review Workflow
Submission List
In Validate mode, open the Submission review panel. Pending submissions are listed with the contributor name, their organization, the submitted date and time, and a badge summarizing the content: Metadata for edits only, New Area for additions, or a combined style when a package holds both.
With nothing pending, the panel shows an All caught up empty state.
Submission Details
Selecting a submission opens Submission details, where a table summarizes the contributor, organization, submitted time, and the type of the change currently in the queue — Metadata edit or New area upload.
Inspecting the Current Change
The Current change card is where the actual review happens. It shows:
- a title for the change, such as the area name or upload label
- View on Map, which flies to the existing area for edits, or previews the geometry for additions
- a field table giving original and new values for metadata edits, or the new record's values for additions
- any submission notes the contributor provided, shown under Justification
Decision
Under Review decision:
- Optionally enter review notes for internal or reviewer comments.
- Choose Reject Change or Approve Change. The button may show Processing… while the request completes.
Submissions containing multiple changes are handled one change at a time — complete the approve or reject step for each before finishing the submission.
After Review
The interface emits refresh events so lists and map data can update. Exact persistence depends on your Supabase and backend configuration, so follow your organization's standard procedure for following up with contributors.
Governance and Process
The following themes are not surfaced as separate controls in the application, but they determine how validation should be carried out.
National Validation Workflows
Country-level institutions may require designated national reviewers or focal points, standard checklists aligned with national law and area categories, and documentation of sources for designation and boundary changes.
Where that is the case, treat the Atlas review interface as the technical step inside those broader procedures rather than as the whole process.
Role of Partners
Networks such as RAISG, and comparable regional partners, often contribute spatial or thematic consistency checks, coordination across countries, and shared baselines for Amazon-wide analysis. Partner guidance should align with contributor agreements and data licenses.
Indigenous Data Governance
Indigenous and community data may be subject to collective consent for publication or sharing, restrictions on which attributes are public rather than restricted, and rights to correct or withdraw information.
Validators should therefore confirm that metadata edits and new areas respect community protocols and organizational data agreements — not only that they are technically correct. See Data Sovereignty and Control.