Process steps
| Step | Meaning |
|---|
| intake | A review case can come from self-application, member nomination, target-requested repeat review, or admin-triggered review. |
| eligibility | Self-owned Apply cases and nominations that open review cases pass eligibility before review opens. |
| reviewer sample | Each reviewer receives random subsamples in two streams: Reviews and Reports. Reports are separate report cases, not review-case intake. In Reviews, self-applications, member nominations, target-requested repeat review, and admin-triggered review are sampled together. Samples stay random. Rating is not review evidence. |
| vote | Reviewers, admins, and reviewer or admin case nominators can submit one of three review votes or skip their assigned case. |
| result | A review decision closes as clear, uncertain, or cheater. |
Eligibility:
- Clearance review: at least 20 rated Codeforces contests, no skipped contests, and no external cheater database match. External matches create external-match cheater status and are not reviewed as report cases.
- Reviewer applications: clear member, historical max rating at least 1600, and either at least 50 rated Codeforces contests or regular Codeforces round problemsetting. Admins can appoint clear users directly.
Decision thresholds are listed below. Admins can override any review decision. Any decision source and status are public. More on it in Statuses and roles.
Review votes
| Vote | Meaning |
|---|
| clear | Reviewer supports clearance for ranking inclusion. |
| not enough evidence | Reviewer does not support clearance or a cheater result under current evidence. |
| cheater | Reviewer supports a project cheating finding. |
Review details
- A not enough evidence vote counts as a submitted review, but not toward clear or cheater thresholds. Each case receives up to 10 submitted reviews.
- Reviewer assignments use random visible subsets of open cases to decorrelate votes.
- Reviewers, admins, and reviewer or admin case nominators can skip assigned reviews. A skip is not a submitted review and does not count toward decision thresholds. If the reviewer pool cannot fill a report case after skips, the report case closes uncertain.
- Reports are reviewed as report cases. Users whose last decision was uncertain or cheater can reappeal once through Apply.
Nominations
| Rule | Meaning |
|---|
| who can nominate | Members, reviewers, and admins can nominate unprocessed eligible Codeforces handles that appear to respect fair play and sportsmanship and should be reviewed by the community. |
| review pool | Nominated cases enter the same Reviews stream as self-applications, repeat reviews, and admin-triggered reviews. |
| who can vote | Reviewer or admin nominators can vote on nominated cases. Ordinary member nominators cannot vote. |
| nominator vote | The reviewer or admin nominator vote counts as a submitted review vote and appears in the nominator's Reviews queue while open. |
| nominator identity | Reviewers can see that a case came from member nomination, but not who nominated it. Admins can see the nominator. |
Review decision thresholds
| Outcome | Public rule |
|---|
| clear | At least 6 submitted clear votes, and the review can no longer end with 2 or more cheater votes. |
| uncertain | Review ends without enough agreement for clear or cheater, including when remaining reviewer slots cannot be filled. |
| cheater | At least 4 submitted cheater votes. |
Review visibility
| Role | Can see | Cannot see |
|---|
| admins | Final status, decision source, votes, voter identities, notes, applicant notes, report details, admin notes, and admin reasons. | none |
| reviewers | Final status, decision source, assigned-case handles and context, assigned report evidence, assigned admin notes, and their own notes. | Vote counts, other reviewers' identities or notes, reporter details, report counts, and admin reasons. |
| other users | Final status and decision source. | Votes, notes, private case context, report details, and admin reasons. |