A multi-stage evaluation needs a record of which submission was reviewed, under which criteria and by which authorised role. The following are design considerations, not verified functions of HATT Scout.
Define entry and exit conditions
Specify what makes a submission ready for individual review and what moves it to a committee decision. Keep an incomplete submission distinct from a low-scoring one. A request for clarification is also different from rejection.
Record how revisions affect work already performed. Reviewers need to know whether they are evaluating the same version or a replacement.
Keep scoring explainable
Document the criteria and any weighting before the review begins. Preserve comments alongside the relevant criterion rather than collecting them in a detached file. Establish how disagreements and conflicts are handled under the programme's own rules.
A combined score should remain traceable to its inputs. Do not imply that a numerical result removes the need for an accountable decision.
Evaluate the full decision record
Test a normal submission, a revision and a case that needs further review. Check that the resulting record explains the outcome and that access matches each role's responsibility.
HATT services can be discussed for a purpose-built process. Scout addresses opportunity discovery; it is not presented here as an evaluation platform.