---
id: expert-contributions.request
title: Request an Expert Contribution
summary: Create a focused benchmark contribution with an accountable expert, clear objectives, selected cases, attachments, and appropriate task components.
kind: task
product_area: expert_contributions
status: stable
updated: 2026-09-07
canonical: /docs/expert-contributions/request-contribution
---

# Request an Expert Contribution

Request a Contribution when a benchmark needs a bounded piece of specialist judgment. The request should make the expert's decision clear, prepare the relevant evidence, and choose only the task components needed to obtain an attributable answer.

## Prerequisites

- A selected project and benchmark.
- An expert eligible for the contribution domain.
- A concrete contribution statement or unresolved correctness question.
- Selected cases, attachments, or scoped statements when the question depends on them.
- Project Context and Reference Materials prepared in Agent Setup; use **Assets → Review Screens** when the Contribution needs reusable expert-facing presentation.

## Steps

1. Open the benchmark and select **Expert Contributions → Contributions**.
2. Choose **Request Contribution**.
3. Complete **Objectives & Missions**. State the decision or knowledge the benchmark needs and select the application domain: Coverage Model, Benchmark Setup, or Evaluation Validation.
4. Complete **Choose Experts** and confirm that each selected expert has the right authority for the mission.
5. Complete **Contribution Components**. Available components are Curation, Comparative, Trajectory, Form, Chat, and Interview. Choose conservative, balanced, or exploratory agent behavior; Comparative accepts two to five candidates and can allow improvement.
6. Designate the relevant Cases. Select exact Case IDs and decide whether the contribution may add Cases beyond that set.
7. Add attachments and scoped statements only when they help resolve the mission. Supported attachment scopes include completed Contributions, Policies, Rubrics, Dimensions, ontology values, Project Topics or Groups, Construction Patterns, and Case candidates.
8. Review the captured attachment snapshot version and hash, generated activities, and checkpoints. Confirm that controlling evidence is frozen and consequential meaning will be reconciled.
9. Send the request and follow its state through Overview, Contributions, or Logs & Status.

## Object and state changes

This task creates a benchmark-scoped Contribution, associates experts, and records missions, application domain, Case designation, attachments, scoped statements, component behavior, and improvement permission. Planning materializes activities such as Case Review, Form, Chat, and Interview. Sending or starting work moves the Contribution toward `READY` or `IN_PROGRESS`; cancellation preserves the record.

## Success criteria

- The Contribution asks one coherent specialist question.
- The selected expert and application domain are appropriate.
- Every case or attachment is relevant to the objective.
- The chosen task types match the judgment required.
- Checkpoints protect decisions that should not be silently inferred.
- Attachment identities, scope statements, snapshot version, and hash are visible.
- The administrator can tell what artifacts may result and where they will be governed.

## Common failure modes

- Asking for general review without a materializable objective.
- Selecting many cases that do not illuminate the same decision.
- Leaving one-time behavior directions outside the Contribution objective, components, or scoped statements.
- Omitting the source or case material needed to explain a judgment.
- Assuming that task completion automatically approves contributed policies or rubrics.

{% example-demo title="Example: focused coverage contribution" %}
The objective asks an expert to decide whether source-freshness and customer-impact should form a distinct coverage slice. The operator selects six cases spanning those facets, attaches the controlling policy, and chooses case review plus a final checkpoint. The request can yield a coverage observation and a scoped rubric without asking the expert to redesign the entire benchmark.
{% /example-demo %}

## Related reference pages

{% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %}
- [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions)
- [Contributed Artifacts](/docs/expert-contributions/contributed-artifacts)
- [Review Screen](/docs/assets/review-screens)
{% /related-card-grid %}

## Related troubleshooting pages

{% related-card-grid title="Related troubleshooting pages" %}
- [Expert Contribution problems](/docs/troubleshooting/expert-contributions)
- [Permissions](/docs/troubleshooting/permissions)
- [Low expert agreement](/docs/troubleshooting/low-expert-agreement)
{% /related-card-grid %}

## Source confidence

Code-backed: the active Contribution composer defines expert selection, objectives, cases, attachments, statements, settings, and contribution components. Exact available components can depend on project and benchmark context.