Address findings from the first review

The assessment team must review the findings from the first LandScale review before proceeding to the local review. Based on the findings, the team should take the following actions as appropriate.

[Insert screenshot of sample first review findings]

Address additional documentation needs

If the findings indicate missing or insufficient documentation, the assessment team must upload the required documentation to the LandScale platform before proceeding to the local review. This step ensures that all documentation gaps are resolved prior to advancing in the process.

Address quality deficiencies or limitations

If the findings identify any potential quality deficiencies or limitations, the assessment team has two options:

1. Resolve the identified issues before the local review: In this case, the assessment team would address the deficiencies or limitations immediately and submit revised results, updated documentation, and any new source data for the local review. This approach is preferable if the team agrees with the findings and wants to expedite the validation process or avoid having the same issues flagged during the local review.

2. Proceed with the local review as planned and address the issues afterward: The assessment team may choose to defer addressing the identified deficiencies or limitations until after the local review but must resolve them before initiating the final LandScale review for Step C validation. This option may be more appropriate if resolving the issues would benefit from incorporating local perspectives or if it is considered more time or resource efficient.

The assessment team may independently choose between the two options for each issue raised in the first review findings. This means that the team could opt to resolve some issues immediately while deferring others until after the local review. This flexibility allows the team to tailor its approach to the specific nature and urgency of each issue.

If the second option is chosen, the LandScale team will include specific local review questions regarding the identified deficiencies or limitations. These questions will prompt local reviewers to comment on the identified issues, providing additional context and feedback.

Methods to resolve quality deficiencies

Quality deficiency findings may be resolved through the following approaches:

1. Select alternative or supplemental dataset(s) and/or analysis method(s): The assessment team can identify and utilize datasets or methods that better fulfill the Step C guidelines. Revised metric results should be generated based on the updated approach.

2. Conduct primary data collection: When necessary, the assessment team may proceed with collecting primary data to generate suitable and reliable metric results for the assessment.

3. Mark the metric as 'data deficient' (if the above approaches are not feasible): If neither alternative datasets nor primary data collection is viable, the metric (and corresponding indicators, as needed) may be marked as 'data deficient.' Metrics labeled as 'data deficient' will not be displayed in the landscape profile or report, nor will they undergo LandScale validation.

If option 1 or 2 is pursued, the revised metric result—along with updated documentation of datasets and methods—must be resubmitted for Step C validation, which includes the two LandScale reviews and the local review.

Methods to resolve quality limitations

Quality limitation findings can be addressed by adding a limitation statement to the given result. This statement should clearly describe the identified limitations and ensure they are appropriately documented.

Dispute data quality findings

If the assessment team disagrees with a finding of a potential data quality deficiency or limitation, they may provide additional documentation to substantiate their position instead of immediately pursuing resolution. This documentation must provide evidence that the data meet the required quality standards and/or do not exhibit the identified limitation.

• Content of the additional documentation: The documentation must directly address the data limitations analysis criteria outlined in Step B and respond specifically to the findings from the first LandScale review.
• Timing and submission: The additional documentation should be uploaded to the LandScale platform before the local review begins. This will allow local reviewers to consider the supplementary evidence as part of their evaluation.

During the final review, the LandScale team will evaluate the supplemental documentation alongside any relevant feedback from the local review to determine whether the additional information credibly refutes or sufficiently addresses the first review findings.