Law governs public power.

Broader than transparency. Visibility alone does not establish that the decision path can be reconstructed.

Different from explainability. A later explanation of a system or decision may describe process without showing what actually determined the individual outcome.

Reviewability therefore requires record integrity: authority, evidence, procedure, reasoning, relevant system influence, and an intelligible connection to the outcome.

Law & authority: identify the governing source and the institutional path through which power was delegated or exercised.

Evidence & procedure: preserve the materials, sequence, timing, notice, participation, and material procedural events.

Reasoning & decision: show how the evidence and governing framework were connected to the conclusion at the time of decision.

Distributed decision-making. The Mizan research architecture identifies statutes, delegated instruments, guidance, intake rules, databases, routing, structured classifications, templates, interfaces, human review, and supervisory practice as potential parts of a modern decision path.

System-mediated administration. The reasonableness-review research distinguishes logistical support from material system influence. Reviewability becomes acute when upstream influence shapes substantive judgment but is absent from the contemporaneous record.

Record-state research. Provenance, version, effective date, amendment, supersession, contradiction, and missing-record conditions must remain distinguishable rather than being collapsed into one apparent record.

Each question is a separate evidentiary inquiry. Missing authority, missing source records, incomplete procedural history, unexplained system influence, or reasons disconnected from the material record should remain visible as unresolved conditions.

The inquiry is not designed to force a score. Where minimum evidence is absent, the appropriate research conclusion may be that reconstruction is incomplete or unsupported.

Reasonableness review: asks whether material system influence is reflected in contemporaneous legal justification rather than supplied only through later technical explanation.

Decision-path reconstruction: examines source authority, provenance, procedural events, reasons, record relationships, and unresolved record conditions.

Human and computational influence: studies when system involvement merely assists administration and when it changes classification, scrutiny, evidentiary attention, timing, or the available decision path.

Source discipline: conclusions should remain bounded by the materials actually reviewed.

Provenance discipline: current, amended, superseded, missing, and conflicting records should not be treated as equivalent inputs.

Validation discipline: disagreements, unresolved conditions, limitations, and withheld conclusions should be recorded rather than converted into artificial certainty.

Institutional boundary: the method does not certify compliance, issue binding legal determinations, or replace courts, tribunals, oversight bodies, or professional judgment.

The listed titles are drawn from the Legitimacy Standards standards-development and advisory structure. They are included because the expertise is relevant to reviewability research.

They should not be represented as formal Reviewability governance roles unless separately appointed and documented. Entity-specific governance must remain distinct.

Mizan: research methodology for reconstructing how authority moves through law, policy, records, procedure, systems, and human judgment.

Legitimacy Standards: separate non-binding framework-development process. It may consider research but does not convert research outputs into legal authority or certification.

Humanitan: broader independent research institute concerned with humanity, governance, law, technology, mobility, and public institutions.

Appropriate inquiries include research collaboration, academic discussion, methodology review, institutional dialogue, and publication-related questions.

General website channels should not be used to submit confidential client files, personal identifiers, active litigation materials, or requests for individualized legal advice.