M-T1-CP-11-SD-02 — Selection Criteria Guide

Release control

Adaptation note

This derivative configures the Local Hero Awards criteria as two coordinated editions: a publishable explanation of eligibility, evidence, weights, anchors, context, tie/no-award and review boundaries; and a restricted panel edition controlling appointment, confidentiality, conflicts, calibration, independent scoring, moderation, recommendation, decision authority, records and recognition permissions. Eligibility remains a pass/fail gateway and is never converted into merit points.

This guide is an operating and governance tool, not legal advice or a right of appeal. The authorised award charter and local governance, privacy, safeguarding, accessibility, records and decision arrangements must be approved before nominations open. Published criteria, anchors and weights cannot be altered mid-cycle except through an authorised fair corrective process.

1. Instructions

1. Complete the controlled award fields and local release gate before publishing or issuing the panel edition.
2. Publish the public edition with the nomination form, eligibility rules and key dates.
3. Finish eligibility screening before any merit scoring.
4. Appoint and brief panel members, collect undertakings and conflict declarations, restrict access, then calibrate with a non-live practice case.
5. Require independent, evidence-based scores to be locked before moderation.
6. Moderate only recorded evidence and anchor use; do not bargain, introduce outside information or default to unexplained averaging.
7. Apply only the tie, no-award, review and decision-authority processes approved before opening.
8. Notify privately and obtain separate recognition permissions before public release.

2. Controlled award fields

3. Local release gate

Part A — public edition

4. Award purpose and process

Purpose: ________________________________________________________________________________

The process follows these stages:

1. nominations are received through the approved channel;
2. published eligibility is assessed pass/fail;
3. eligible nominations are assigned controlled identifiers;
4. cleared panel members assess evidence independently;
5. material differences are moderated under the published rules;
6. the panel records a recommendation;
7. the authorised decision-maker approves, returns for procedural correction or does not approve;
8. nominees are notified privately; and
9. public recognition occurs only after fact-checking and permission.

5. Eligibility — pass/fail, not scored

Clarification may address only an already published requirement. Comparable nominees receive the same opportunity and response period. Clarification must not invite stronger merit evidence after closing unless the published rules provide the same opportunity to everyone.

6. Evidence standard

Useful evidence is relevant, specific, attributable and proportionate. It can include verified examples, records, data, partner or beneficiary perspectives, outputs and outcomes. The panel distinguishes:

• activity — what was done;
• output — what was produced or delivered; and
• outcome — what changed or benefited.

Evidence volume, prestige, writing polish, job title and project scale are not automatic merit. Collective achievements must be attributed fairly and limitations should be stated.

7. Scoring architecture

Eligible nominations are scored from 0 to 4 on each criterion.

Weighted score = (raw score ÷ 4) × criterion weight.

Example: raw score 3 on a 20-point criterion gives 15 points. Do not add unpublished bonuses. A total supports disciplined comparison but does not replace evidence reasons, conflicts, moderation or authorised decision.

8. Common 0–4 scale

9. Criterion 1 — Community value and demonstrated outcomes, 35

Consider relevance of need, people reached or served, credible change, depth and breadth, nominee attribution and context. Do not equate scale alone with value.

10. Criterion 2 — Leadership, service and contribution, 25

Consider initiative, judgement, reliability, effort, courage, stewardship and service. Leadership may be formal or informal.

11. Criterion 3 — Inclusion, ethics and collaboration, 20

Consider listening, shared ownership, respect, barrier reduction, responsible conduct, partner recognition and trust. Personal characteristics need not be disclosed to demonstrate inclusion.

12. Criterion 4 — Sustainability or ongoing value, 20

Consider capability, continuity, transferability, stewardship, learning, relationships and realistic next ownership. Longevity is not required where a time-limited response was appropriate.

13. Context, comparability, tie and no-award

Context explains what was difficult, innovative or proportionate; it does not create unpublished points. The panel asks:

• What resources, authority and opportunity were reasonably available?
• Was the contribution appropriately ambitious for the context?
• Does evidence show reach, depth, quality or durable change?
• Is collective work attributed fairly?
• Would the same evidence receive the same score without names, prestige and writing style?

Approved tie process: ________________________________________________________________

No-award rule: ________________________________________________________________

The panel may recommend no award only where the approved charter permits it. A tie is resolved only through the process published before opening, never an undisclosed preference.

14. Notification, feedback and review boundaries

The public edition must state decision finality and any limited review grounds accurately. It must not promise an appeal that the authorised terms do not create.

Part B — panel-controlled edition

15. Panel appointment and undertaking

Before access, each member confirms:

• [ ] I will apply only published eligibility and criteria.
• [ ] I will keep nomination, panel and decision information confidential.
• [ ] I will use only submitted or authorised evidence and will not conduct outside research.
• [ ] I will disclose actual, potential and perceived conflicts promptly.
• [ ] I will not access, discuss, score or vote on a nomination from which I am recused.
• [ ] I will record evidence reasons, limitations and any score change.
• [ ] I will return or securely dispose of working copies under the approved route.

16. Conflict declaration and decision

The affected member does not decide their own management plan. A recusal removes access, discussion, scoring and voting for that nomination and is reflected in quorum and denominator calculations.

17. Calibration

Use one approved practice case that is not a live nomination.

Calibration aligns interpretation; it does not force identical judgement or create new criteria.

18. Independent score sheet

Quality check:

• [ ] Every non-zero score cites specific submitted or authorised evidence.
• [ ] No score relies on personal knowledge, popularity or unauthorised research.
• [ ] Collective achievements are attributed proportionately.
• [ ] The same standard is used across nominations.
• [ ] Limitations and uncertainty are stated.
• [ ] Sensitive or irrelevant details are not copied into notes.
• [ ] A second operator can reproduce every weighted score.

19. Moderation

Moderation is triggered by a raw-score spread greater than one point, materially different evidence interpretation, ranking dependence on one assessor, suspected anchor drift/bias, unresolved verification, a late conflict/quorum change, a tie/near tie or a no-award recommendation.

Protocol:

1. confirm quorum and conflict decisions;
2. display controlled identifiers and locked criterion scores;
3. discuss evidence and anchor use, not personal preference;
4. resolve factual misunderstanding only through authorised records;
5. do not introduce new outside information;
6. allow a score change only with a recorded evidence-based reason;
7. apply the approved tie or no-award rule; and
8. record recommendation, material minority view, conditions and residual risk.

20. Recommendation and decision authority

The decision authority does not informally re-score. A procedural defect is returned to the affected stage with a clear scope and independent control.

21. Recognition and records controls

• [ ] Recipient and non-recipient notifications are private and use approved wording.
• [ ] Every public name, fact, quote, image, channel and partner share has separate recorded permission.
• [ ] A decline or limited-recognition choice is respected.
• [ ] Panel access and working copies close after the authorised stage.
• [ ] Nomination, eligibility, conflict, score, moderation, decision, permission and review records follow the approved access and retention schedule.
• [ ] A complaint, litigation, privacy or safeguarding hold prevents disposal until authorised release.
• [ ] Public decision explanation excludes unnecessary personal information and confidential panel material.

22. Release and REVIEW approval

• [ ] Eligibility is separate from merit scoring.
• [ ] Published weights total 100 and match the score sheet/workbook.
• [ ] Every criterion has usable anchors 0–4.
• [ ] Public and panel editions share the same approved version, category and dates.
• [ ] Conflicts and calibration finish before live access and scoring.
• [ ] Recusal blocks access, discussion, scoring and voting.
• [ ] Independent scores lock before moderation.
• [ ] Tie, no-award, decision and review rules were approved before opening.
• [ ] Decision records explain outcome without unnecessary personal information.
• [ ] Public recognition is blocked until fact-checking and permission.

Until every applicable gate passes, this derivative remains REVIEW.