Research & Evidence Quality Steward

Position: Research & Evidence Quality Steward — The Global Risks Forum (GRF) / Nexus Governance System
Type: Evidence quality governance, reproducibility discipline, and assurance-to-standards stewardship role (non-executive; strictly non-executing)
Board: Officers may be considered for Board/Trustee nomination after serving in good standing (where permitted by governance rules and independence constraints)
Location: International (distributed, hybrid)
Term: 3 Years
Time commitment: ~12–25 hours per month (build-year cadence; surge periods around evidence quality releases, contested claims, and quarterly recognition cycles)
Apply here: https://therisk.global/work/job/research-evidence-quality-steward/

Context and Purpose

Standards and recognition cannot be credible unless they are grounded in evidence that is measurable, reproducible, and correctionable. The most damaging failure modes are predictable: “black box” claims, irreproducible models, hidden data assumptions, and outputs that cannot be audited or corrected when reality changes. When evidence is weak, recognition becomes reputational theater.

The Global Risks Forum (GRF) stewards standards, assurance rules, and recognition states. A key part of that mandate is governing what “good evidence” means: evidence quality levels, documentation requirements, uncertainty disclosure, benchmarking and replication expectations, and the conditions under which claims may be made or must be bounded.

The Research & Evidence Quality Steward ensures GRF’s evidence quality language is scientifically rigorous and operationally usable: defining evidence quality criteria, promoting reproducibility and benchmarking discipline, and ensuring corrections and supersessions are visible and traceable—without taking on the role of executing research programs or producing scientific outputs directly.

This is governance—not execution. The role does not run labs, select research vendors, publish proprietary assessments, or imply endorsement of any model or dataset. It stewards the rules and expectations for evidence quality.

Key Responsibilities

• Maintain GRF evidence quality levels: criteria, required artifacts, documentation expectations, and what claims are allowed at each evidence quality level.
• Ensure reproducibility and transparency posture: minimum disclosure requirements, uncertainty representation, data lineage expectations, and correction/supersession mechanics.
• Maintain benchmarking and replication governance: how models and indices are validated, what constitutes adequate replication, and how results are reported safely.
• Ensure evidence quality rules are usable across constituencies: public authorities, research, operators, finance, civil society/media, and community/Indigenous governance—without diluting scientific rigor.
• Maintain claims discipline tied to evidence quality: prohibit over-claiming; mandate limitations and disclaimers; define when evidence is insufficient for recognition or public release.
• Route evidence-related disputes into resolvable pathways: interpretations, clarifications, and correction notices.
• Coordinate with Standards & Recognition and Integration functions to ensure evidence quality requirements are coherent with recognition criteria and conformance profiles.
• Coordinate with handling and safeguards functions to ensure publication of evidence-related materials is public-safe and does not expose sensitive locations, vulnerable populations, or exploitable infrastructure details.
• Sponsor quarterly learning cycles: evidence failures, replication disputes, correction patterns, and improvements to evidence quality criteria.

Compensation, Remuneration, and Expenses

• Governance authority is not paid. Compensation is never linked to recognition outcomes, dispute results, enforcement actions, standards outcomes, market outcomes, or influence.
• Operational workload may be compensated (where permitted). If build-year operational work is required (criteria drafting, benchmarking guidance, template libraries), any compensation must be scoped, deliverable-based, independently approved, auditable, and never linked to recognition outcomes.
• Expenses may be reimbursed where documented, pre-approved, and policy-compliant.
• Continued service depends on remaining in good standing and meeting disclosure and integrity obligations.

Opportunities for Leaders to Join

• Define what “settlement-grade” and “audit-grade” evidence means in a whole-of-society governance setting—without turning science into politics.
• Build reproducibility and correction discipline that prevents black-box risk governance and strengthens trust in public claims.
• Shape evidence quality standards that are adoptable by institutions while retaining scientific integrity.
• Strong performance positions leaders for senior stewardship roles and board consideration (without implying entitlement).

Leaders Profile

We are seeking senior leaders (typically 12–20+ years) with credibility across one or more of:

• Research leadership in risk science, climate/disaster modeling, systemic risk, infrastructure resilience, or complex systems.
• Evidence assurance, reproducibility/replication governance, benchmarking frameworks, and audit-linked scientific reporting.
• Standards bodies or scientific advisory systems where claims must be bounded and defensible.
• Cross-domain translation between science, policy, and operational decisioning.

Capabilities and Mindset

• Scientific rigor with governance discipline: can set rules that are strict yet usable.
• Claims discipline: intolerant of over-claiming and unclear uncertainty.
• Correction-positive: designs systems that correct openly and traceably.
• Handling maturity: understands what evidence can be published safely and what must be restricted.
• Strong writing: produces clear evidence criteria, templates, and guidance.

Eligibility, Membership, and Independence

• Holds a primary role outside the officer seat (unless otherwise permitted) and can sustain the expected cadence.
• Willing to fully disclose relevant interests and comply with conflict-of-interest and recusal requirements.
• Not placed in a situation where service creates unmanageable conflicts or compromises neutrality.
• Accepts confidentiality, handling discipline, and communications integrity expectations.
• Commits to remain in good standing (participation, disclosures, and applicable contribution obligations).