Workflow — Judge Review

Purpose

Give the judges panel a clean review board to inspect contestants (profile, photo, media, AI stats) and record decisions; the aggregated report goes to the main admin who finalizes.

Preconditions

• Judge account exists (admin-created; login via password; LinkedIn optional later).
• Judge assigned to event / category scope (judge_assignments).
• Contestants exist with ai_scored or approved status.

Main flow

1. Judge logs in → Review board shows assigned categories with contestant cards (photo, name, category, AI score/sparklines, vote count if admin enabled visibility).
2. Judge opens a contestant → full profile: bio, LinkedIn link, uploaded photo, AI interview transcript (questions, answers, per-answer score/feedback), public media.
3. Judge picks a decision: Approve / Disapprove / Needs info + writes notes.
4. Saved (one decision per judge per contestant — revisable until admin locks the event).
5. Progress indicator: "12/30 reviewed".
6. Admin report auto-compiles per category: votes, AI total, judges' tallies + notes.

Alternate / error flows

• A1 Conflict of interest → judge may flag "recuse" — decision recorded as recused; admin notified.
• A2 Bias protection → judges don't see other judges' decisions until admin locks (avoids anchoring).
• A3 Needs-info → staff may contact applicant via ticket/WhatsApp and attach outcome.

Rules applied

BR-004 (board score input), BR-005 (admin still holds veto), BR-006 (judges' visibility controlled by admin toggle).

Data touched

Sequence

sequenceDiagram
    participant J as Judge
    participant W as Website
    participant DB as MariaDB
    participant AD as Admin (main)
    J->>W: login → review board
    loop each contestant
        J->>W: open profile (photo, AI stats, media)
        J->>W: decision + notes
        W->>DB: upsert judge_reviews
    end
    W->>DB: compile per-category report
    W-->>AD: "Judge report ready"