> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://dualguard.gitbook.io/dualguard/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://dualguard.gitbook.io/dualguard/security-reviews/judges.md).

# Judges

{% hint style="info" %}
**Note for Protocol Teams:** There is no mandatory action to take during judging. DualGuard's judging will reach a final state without any input from the protocol team.\
\
You may focus on fixing any issues as soon as you notice them during the process. However, if you want to provide input or advice on certain issues, this is always welcome.
{% endhint %}

#### Phase 1: Community Judging

> **Purpose:** To quickly crowdsource judgments, rank the judges, and give the 2 Lead Judges an idea of the community's thoughts toward a submission in terms of validity status, impact and likelihood.

* Happens right after the security review contest ends
* Lasts a fixed number of days (# of issues / 50) days (for example 500 issues would be 10 days), with a minimum of 2 days

#### Phase 2: Dual Judging

> **Purpose:** What's the purpose of this phase? Community Judging often surfaces controversial and/or complex issues that are best judged by a top-tier security expert.

* The Lead Judges will know the start date as soon as the contest ends (if 500 issues then he starts 10 days after the contest ends). It is a 2-step process:
  * Lead Judges get (# of issues / 200) days to judge the issues (so 700 issues would round up to 4 days). Each Lead Judge has to evaluate issues from his own batch but they can collaborate when needed. Batches are divided in 2 randomly without taking duplicates into account. Lead Judges must write an explanation for every judgment.
  * Each Lead Judge will review the other Lead Judge's review and confront him when he thinks his decision is wrong. This process should take around (# of issues / 400) days (so 700 issues would round up to 2 days). This is enforced to reduce the number of escalations by having the Lead Judge reach consensus. 
* The Supreme Judge is available to discuss decisions with the Lead Judges. Lead Judges are encouraged to consult him for brainstorming or clarification, as he can provide valuable input, especially when consensus cannot be reached.
* The Lead Judges are trusted to use judgment and reasoning. They should follow the guidelines, however, in exceptional cases where context justifies it, they can apply their common sense to override a rule. Clearly explain your decisions, especially when subjective interpretation is required.

{% hint style="success" %}
Checkpoint: Preliminary Results Announced
{% endhint %}

#### Phase 3: Escalations

> **Purpose:** Sometimes a Guard will want to appeal the Lead Judge's decision because he believe it is wrong.

* After the preliminary results are announced, Guards have 72 hours to flag any issues for re-review. The sooner they start, the more back and forth they can get with a max of 3 comments.
* Guards can leave an extra comment explaining their objection.

#### Phase 4: Final Judgment

> **Purpose:** The Lead Judges will re-review any issues flagged during the Escalation Period. The Supreme Judge will supervise and interject if needed.

* The Lead Judges get (# of escalations / 40) days to complete Phase 4.
* Each Lead Judge will review the escalated issues initially judged by the other judge.
* At the end of this phase:
  *  All the issues should be attributed a validity status and for valid issues, impact and likelihood should be attributed as well.
  * All the issues should be attributed the spec they belong to (language, protocol categories, fork origin). That will matter for the guards scores.
* Lead Judges might and are encouraged to collaborate.
* The Supreme Judge will:
  * closely monitor the decisions during Phase 4
  * be available for any questions
  * ask questions if something is unclear
  * play the role of mediator between the Lead Judges, in case of disagreement, to reach consensus
  * Check that the correct specs were attributed to each issue
  * The Supreme Judge will respect the Lead Judges' final decisions unless a strong indication of error is identified

{% hint style="success" %}
Checkpoint: Final Results Announced
{% endhint %}