# Expert Contribution problems Generated: 2026-09-13T04:39:38.245Z Source build: local Canonical docs: https://teammately.ai/docs --- id: troubleshooting.expert-contributions title: Expert Contribution problems summary: Diagnose contribution access, task routing, checkpoint, synchronization, completion, and artifact-reconciliation problems. kind: error product_area: troubleshooting status: stable updated: 2026-08-22 canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/expert-contributions --- # Expert Contribution problems ## Symptom An expert cannot open the Contribution, reaches the wrong task, sees stale work, cannot submit a response, remains at a checkpoint or waiting state, or completes the experience without the administrator seeing reconciled evidence. ## Likely causes - The expert lacks access or opened a link for a different Contribution. - The task handoff changed and the browser still points to an earlier route. - A form, chat, interview, or case-review command has not synchronized. - The task lease, realtime connection, or retry state needs recovery. - A checkpoint still requires confirmation or correction. - The expert experience is complete, but contributed artifacts have not yet been reconciled in the administrator workspace. - The Contribution was cancelled or changed while the expert was working. ## Fix 1. Confirm the Contribution identity and expert assignment in **Expert Contributions → Contributions**. 2. Inspect its current status and task plan rather than relying on the expert's previous URL. 3. Ask the expert to reopen the Contribution entry route so the current task handoff can resolve. 4. If the UI shows a waiting, retry, or synchronization state, follow that state and avoid duplicate submissions. 5. Inspect checkpoints for an unconfirmed or corrected statement. 6. Use **Logs & Status** to distinguish expert completion from reconciliation or artifact-materialization work. 7. Check **Contributed Artifacts** and the owning Correctness Governance, Assets, or Coverage Management surface before concluding that accepted material is missing. ## Prevention - Keep Contribution objectives and task sequences narrow. - Verify expert access before sending the request. - Preserve checkpoints for consequential meaning. - Use the current Contribution entry route instead of bookmarking an internal task route. - Teach administrators that task completion, evidence reconciliation, and artifact governance are separate transitions. - Avoid submitting the same response repeatedly when the product shows a pending or retryable synchronization state. {% example-demo title="Example: completed task but missing policy" %} An expert completes the final checkpoint, but the policy does not yet appear in Correctness Governance. Logs & Status shows that the Contribution is complete while evidence reconciliation remains active. The administrator waits for reconciliation, then inspects Contributed Artifacts and materializes the policy through its owning workflow instead of asking the expert to repeat the task. {% /example-demo %} ## Related task pages {% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %} - [Request an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/request-contribution) - [Complete an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution) - [Product quickstart](/docs/quickstart) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %} - [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions) - [Contributed Artifacts](/docs/expert-contributions/contributed-artifacts) - [Roles and permissions](/docs/reference/permissions) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: the expert routes, contribution runtime, durable command synchronization, and administrator status surfaces support these diagnostic boundaries. --- id: expert-contributions.overview title: Expert Contributions summary: Coordinate benchmark-scoped expert work, attributable judgment, governed artifacts, and the decisions that move correctness forward. kind: concept product_area: expert_contributions status: stable updated: 2026-09-07 canonical: /docs/expert-contributions --- # Expert Contributions Expert Contributions is the benchmark-scoped workspace for requesting, conducting, and materializing specialist work. It coordinates the expert, objective, selected evidence, task sequence, checkpoints, attributable responses, and contributed artifacts needed to move a benchmark forward. ## Definition The administrator workspace contains **Overview**, **Contributions**, **Contributed Artifacts**, and **Logs & Status**. **Request Contribution** opens the composer for a new contribution. The expert follows a contribution-specific experience that can contain form, chat, interview, and case-review tasks, along with checkpoints and completion states. A Contribution is the unit of requested expert effort. It replaces broad workflow configuration with a bounded statement of what this benchmark needs from this expert now. The work can result in contributed policies, rubrics, cases, or coverage observations without flattening all expert activity into one generic approval record. ## Decision checkpoint | Need | Contribution element | Result to inspect | | --- | --- | --- | | Resolve a specific benchmark question | Contribution statement and scoped objectives | The expert can explain the requested decision | | Ground work in concrete behavior | Selected or designated cases | Case-level responses remain attributable | | Supply supporting knowledge | Attachments and scoped statements | The expert sees the relevant source boundary | | Choose the right interaction | Form, chat, interview, or case review task | Task output matches the kind of judgment needed | | Confirm consequential learning | Checkpoint | Accepted, revised, or unresolved state is explicit | | Reuse the result | Contributed Artifacts | Policies, rubrics, cases, and coverage observations retain provenance | ## Lifecycle and status The durable Contribution statuses are `PREPARING_DIRECTION`, `AWAITING_DIRECTION_ALIGNMENT`, `MATERIALIZING_TASKS`, `READY`, `IN_PROGRESS`, `COMPLETED`, and `CANCELLED`. The interface presents these as planning direction, waiting for alignment, preparing tasks, ready, active, completed, or cancelled. The exact task sequence can vary by Contribution. Realtime updates and durable transitions help the administrator and expert see current progress without inventing completion. A waiting state, checkpoint, or finalization step should be shown as such. Completing the expert experience does not imply that every proposed artifact has been accepted into its project-level owner. ## Contribution evidence Logs & Status exposes operational and engagement records. Contributed Artifacts organizes materialized or contributed cases, policies, rubrics, and new coverage observations. Correctness Governance, Assets, or Coverage Management owns the resulting project or benchmark artifact after materialization. This model improves return on expert effort. Agents prepare focused work from project context, indexed material, benchmark cases, and unresolved questions. The expert supplies the authority; the result can be reused across standards, coverage, evaluation, and improvement. {% example-demo title="Resolve source authority" %} A benchmark contains cases where an operational runbook conflicts with a newer policy page. The operator requests a Contribution from the policy owner, selects the conflicting cases, attaches both sources, and uses case review plus a checkpoint. The expert establishes which source controls, contributes a scoped policy and rubric, and records one coverage observation for an unrepresented exception. {% /example-demo %} ## Related workflows {% related-card-grid title="Related workflows" %} - [Request an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/request-contribution) - [Complete an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution) - [Build policies and rubrics](/docs/operating-manual/build-policies-and-rubrics) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %} - [Contributed Artifacts](/docs/expert-contributions/contributed-artifacts) - [Contribution lifecycle and status](/docs/expert-contributions/lifecycle-and-status) - [Logs & Status](/docs/expert-contributions/logs-and-status) - [Agent Setup](/docs/agent-setup) - [Human Approval Boundaries](/docs/governance/human-approval-boundaries) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: the active benchmark workspace, Contribution dashboard, composer, administrator detail, and expert routes support the scope, task, status, and artifact model described here. --- 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. --- id: expert-contributions.complete title: Complete an Expert Contribution summary: Work through form, chat, interview, case-review, and checkpoint tasks while keeping specialist judgment attributable. kind: task product_area: expert_contributions status: stable updated: 2026-08-22 canonical: /docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution --- # Complete an Expert Contribution Complete a Contribution by following its prepared task sequence and making the requested specialist judgments from the evidence shown. The expert experience can adapt between structured forms, agent chat, interviews, case review, and checkpoints. ## Prerequisites - A valid Contribution link or authenticated expert entry point. - Access to the Contribution and its assigned tasks. - Enough source and case context to explain each answer. - A stable connection when the task uses realtime agent interaction. ## Steps 1. Open the Contribution and read its objective, selected cases, and expected components before answering. 2. Complete each task according to its type. Planned activities can be Case Review, Form, Chat, or Interview; Curation, Comparative, and Trajectory components shape the prepared work those activities present. 3. Use attachments and visible case materials as the evidence boundary. State uncertainty when the supplied material does not resolve the question. 4. At a checkpoint, inspect the proposed summary or artifact meaning. Checkpoints prepare and reconcile requirements, consolidator or Policy statements, interview requests or records, and Rubrics. Confirm only what matches your judgment; retry, revise, or leave unresolved anything that does not. 5. Continue through the task handoff until the Contribution reaches its final step. 6. Review the completion state. If the experience shows a waiting, retry, or synchronization state, do not assume the administrator has received final evidence until the product confirms it. ## Object and state changes Answers create durable task responses and can advance task sessions, checkpoints, handoffs, and Contribution status. Chat or interview activity can produce transcripts and structured learning. Case review can attach judgment to selected cases. Completion makes the contribution available for reconciliation and materialization but does not itself make every proposed artifact governed. Review tasks can be `PREPARING`, `BLOCKED`, `READY`, `IN_PROGRESS`, `COMPLETED`, `SKIPPED`, or `SUPERSEDED`. The expert runtime can be `PREPARING`, `READY`, `ACTIVE`, `FINAL_CHECKPOINT`, `COMPLETED`, or `EXHAUSTED`. Checkpoints can be preparing, ready, or reconciled, with individual requirements pending, retryable, materialized, empty, or failed. These layered states explain why a Contribution can be active while one task is blocked or a final checkpoint is still pending. ## Success criteria - Every answer addresses the Contribution objective and cites the visible evidence where needed. - Case-level judgments remain connected to the relevant case. - Checkpoints distinguish accepted, revised, and unresolved meaning. - The final state is visibly complete rather than inferred from navigation. - Uncertainty or source conflict remains explicit for the administrator. ## Common failure modes - Answering from private background without identifying that the supplied evidence is incomplete. - Treating an agent summary as accurate without checking the checkpoint. - Leaving a form or chat task in a local unsynchronized state. - Continuing after a stale task handoff instead of following the current Contribution route. - Assuming that completion directly changes policies, rubrics, cases, or coverage. {% example-demo title="Example: checkpoint correction" %} An interview summary says that every expired agreement should be ignored. The expert corrects the checkpoint: expired agreements may still be relevant when the current agreement explicitly incorporates them. The corrected statement remains attributable and prevents an overbroad policy from being materialized. {% /example-demo %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %} - [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions) - [Contributed Artifacts](/docs/expert-contributions/contributed-artifacts) - [Human Approval Boundaries](/docs/governance/human-approval-boundaries) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related troubleshooting pages {% related-card-grid title="Related troubleshooting pages" %} - [Expert Contribution problems](/docs/troubleshooting/expert-contributions) - [Permissions](/docs/troubleshooting/permissions) - [Authentication](/docs/troubleshooting/authentication) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: the current expert experience supports form, chat, interview, case-review, checkpoint, completion, waiting, and task-handoff routes with durable command and reconciliation behavior.