Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/CCAFS/MARLO/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Quality assurance in MARLO is a structured, evidence-based review process built directly into the platform rather than managed through separate spreadsheets or email. QA reviewers assess cluster submissions against the program’s quality criteria — a 92%+ quality rating and 95%+ open-access compliance rate — and attach field-scoped comments that coordinators resolve in place. The entire cycle — submit, review, revise, re-validate — happens inside MARLO, creating an auditable record of every change.

​
QA reviewer workflow

1

Open the QA queue

Navigate to Quality Assurance in the main menu. The QA queue lists all items pending review for the active phase. Each row shows the cluster name, section (Deliverable, OICR, Innovation, Description, etc.), current status, and when the item was last updated.
2

Filter the queue

Use the filter controls to narrow the queue by:
  • Cluster — review one cluster at a time to maintain focus.
  • Section — filter to a specific content type (e.g., all Deliverables).
  • Status — show only items that are Pending, Needs Revision, or Validated.
During high-volume periods (end-of-cycle AR), filtering by section and then working systematically through clusters is more efficient than tackling the queue in submission order.
3

Open an item for review

Click an item to open the review detail page. You will see:
  • The current phase values submitted by the coordinator.
  • Where available, a side-by-side comparison with the previous phase’s values (for example, POWB planned values alongside AR reported values).
  • Any feedback comments that have already been added by other reviewers.
4

Review fields and add feedback

Work through each field in the item. If a field requires improvement:
  1. Click the Add comment button next to the relevant field.
  2. Write a specific, actionable comment explaining what needs to change and why.
  3. Comments are field-scoped — each comment is attached to the specific field it addresses, making it unambiguous for the coordinator.
Good QA feedback is concrete:
  • “The DOI link is broken — please verify the URL and re-enter.”
  • “Open Access intent is marked ‘Restricted’ but the program target requires open deposit. Please confirm or update.”
  • “OICR maturity is listed as Level 4, but no supporting evidence is attached. Please upload the policy document referenced in the narrative.”
5

Mark the item Validated or Needs Revision

After reviewing all fields:
  • Validated — the item meets quality criteria. No further action is required from the coordinator for this item.
  • Needs Revision — one or more fields require coordinator action. The coordinator will be notified and the item reappears in their editing view with your comments visible.
An item marked Needs Revision does not block coordinators from editing other sections. The coordinator can address your comments on their own schedule within the review window.
6

Monitor the dashboard

The QA dashboard (embedded in the Quality Assurance section) shows aggregate validation progress across clusters and sections. During active review periods, this dashboard refreshes every 30 minutes or less.Track:
  • Percentage of items validated versus pending versus needing revision.
  • Per-cluster completeness of QA coverage.
  • Response rate — how quickly coordinators are addressing Needs Revision items.

​
Common QA review questions

A deliverable meets the open-access criterion when it has one of the following:
  • A DOI pointing to a publication under an open licence (CC BY or equivalent).
  • A CGSpace handle confirming the document has been deposited in the CGIAR open-access repository.
  • A confirmed deposit in another approved institutional or subject repository.
A statement of intent without an actual link or DOI is not sufficient for a completed deliverable. For planned deliverables still in progress, intent is acceptable.
Mark the item Needs Revision and add a comment scoped to the DOI field explaining that the link is not resolving. Do not attempt to look up or substitute the correct DOI yourself — the coordinator is responsible for verifying and re-entering the link. Once corrected, the item returns to your queue for re-review.
Use your judgment based on the program’s quality rubric. Required fields (as defined by the validator in MARLO) will prevent submission if empty, so any item that reaches the QA queue has passed basic completeness checks. Optional fields that are empty but not materially affecting quality are generally acceptable to mark as Validated with an informational comment suggesting improvement.
Mark the item Needs Revision and clearly explain what is incorrect and what correct data should look like. If the issue is systemic across a cluster (for example, a misunderstanding of a field definition), contact the PMU lead to coordinate a briefing for the coordinator rather than leaving individual comments on every item.
The QA queue status updates automatically when a coordinator saves changes to a Needs Revision item. The item status changes to reflect the update, and the dashboard reflects the change within the 30-minute refresh window. You do not need to contact coordinators directly — the queue is the communication channel.

Build docs developers (and LLMs) love

Get started for freeTalk to us