Official Publication Review Framework

JalWater can only publish official water values after a human-reviewed, auditable source workflow. This framework prepares the process without adding groundwater values.

Review workflow

Official publication identified ↓ Publication registered ↓ Human reviews publication ↓ Relevant tables identified ↓ Values manually extracted ↓ Values verified ↓ Second reviewer approval ↓ Published ↓ Visible on JalWater.

01
Official publication identified
A recognised source family is identified before any publication metadata or values enter JalWater.
02
Publication registered
The publication shell records title, institution, date, source URL, retrieval date, and usage notes.
03
Human reviews publication
A reviewer checks that the publication is official, relevant, readable, and suitable for manual extraction.
04
Relevant tables identified
The reviewer records exact page and table references without copying values into public indicators yet.
05
Values manually extracted
Values are copied exactly into structured files. No OCR, scraping, rounding, conversion, or inference is allowed.
06
Values verified
The extracted row is checked against the original publication text, geography, unit, period, and citation.
07
Second reviewer approval
A second reviewer approves the row before any value can become eligible for public rendering.
08
Published
Only approved rows with complete provenance can be connected to public indicator records.
09
Visible on JalWater
The public page shows the approved value with source, publication date, retrieval date, citation, and methodology.

Review Checklist

Reviewer must verify every item. Nothing renders until every checkbox passes.

publication title

institution

publication date

source URL

page number

table number

indicator

geography

exact wording

exact numeric value

unit

reporting period

citation

reviewer

approver

Nothing renders until every checkbox passes.

Open checklist page

Publication dashboard

The publication dashboard tracks source-review state across official publications. Counts describe review rows, not water statistics.

Publication	Institution	Status	Coverage	Locations extracted	Indicators extracted	Last reviewed	Approved by	Rows approved	Rows pending	Rows rejected
CGWB official groundwater publication metadata shell	Central Ground Water Board	reviewed metadata only	Publication metadata shell only; no approved water-value coverage	Data not yet available	Data not yet available	Data not yet available	Data not yet available	0	0	0

Extraction dashboard

The extraction dashboard shows table/page review progress for each publication before any approved row is connected to public indicators.

Publication	Table list	Page list	Locations found	Indicators found	Rows extracted	Rows approved	Rows rejected
CGWB official groundwater publication metadata shell	Data not yet available	Data not yet available	Data not yet available	Data not yet available	0	0	0

Reviewer guidance

Never round numbers.
Never interpret.
Never merge rows.
Never rename indicators.
Never convert units.
Never change geography.
Never estimate.
Copy exactly.

Contributor documentation

Reviewed extracts remain manual structured files. This is not database ingestion, scraping, OCR, or public API implementation.

Naming conventions: use lowercase source-family folders and descriptive extract filenames, for example data/reviewed-sources/cgwb/<publication-id>-extract.json.

Folder structure: keep reviewed extracts under data/reviewed-sources/<source-family>/ with a README and example extract template.

Validation requirements: approved rows require source document ID, page or table context, citation, reviewer, approver, value, unit, period, and geography.

Review process: one human reviewer registers and extracts, then checks every row against the official publication.

Approval process: a second reviewer approves only exact copied rows; pending and rejected rows remain hidden.

Validation reports

Every approved extract should eventually generate Validation passed or Validation failed with exact reasons.

Validation passed

An approved extract row with complete provenance and second reviewer approval.

All required fields are present
Approval status is approved

Validation failed

A pending, rejected, or incomplete extract row.

Missing source document ID, page/table context, citation, reviewer, approver, official value, unit, period, or geography
Approval status is pending or rejected
The row attempts to render metadata-only records as water data

Review Validation

Run npm run validate:extracts locally to scan reviewed extract JSON files under data/reviewed-sources/. The validator reports pass/fail reasons and does not render values publicly.

Local command

npm run validate:extracts

The report includes total files checked, total records checked, approved records, pending records, rejected records, validation passed count, validation failed count, and exact failure reasons by file and record.

Review Reports

Saved validation reports are local audit artifacts only. They support reviewer signoff but do not approve public rendering.

JSON report

npm run validate:extracts:report

Markdown report

npm run validate:extracts:report:md

Signoff Governance

Reviewer signoff manifests link validation reports, reviewed extracts, reviewer names, approver names, source document IDs, and approval scope. They are audit records only.

Run npm run validate:signoffs to validate local signoff manifests under data/review-signoffs/. Reviewed extract validation ≠ reviewer signoff ≠ public rendering approval.

Even approved-for-record does not mean public rendering is approved.

Future source-family compatibility

The framework should not assume groundwater only. Additional official source families can plug into the same publication, extract, approval, and validation workflow.

CGWB

Central Ground Water Board

Groundwater publications can use the same registration, extraction, approval, and validation gates.

CWC

Central Water Commission

Reservoir or surface-water publications can plug into the same reviewed extract structure.

IMD

India Meteorological Department

Rainfall publications can use the same citation and approval rules without assuming groundwater only.

CPCB

Central Pollution Control Board

Water-quality publications can use the same exact-copy and provenance checklist.

Jal Jeevan Mission

Coverage publications can use the same source-document shell and reviewed-row validation.

NITI Aayog

Index or report publications can use the same manual review process before any derived interpretation.

Current public data status

Data not yet available. This prototype does not invent, estimate, scrape, interpolate, or predict water statistics. Official values will appear only after the source, publication date, retrieval date, and methodology are reviewed.