This page is a digest about this topic. It is a compilation from various blogs that discuss it. Each title is linked to the original blog.
The topic best practices for external reviewers has 7 sections. Narrow your search by using keyword search and selecting one of the keywords below:
- external claims (5)
- external claim validation process (4)
- funding evaluation (3)
- valuable insights (3)
- evaluation criteria (3)
- negative assurance (3)
- bond issuers (3)
- validation process (2)
- validation processes (2)
- validation criteria (2)
- user authorization (2)
- data protection (2)
- handle claims mappings (2)
1.Best Practices for External Reviewers[Original Blog]
Section: Best Practices for External Reviewers
In this section, we will explore the best practices for external reviewers in the context of funding evaluation. External reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the quality and fairness of the evaluation process. By following these best practices, reviewers can provide valuable insights and contribute to the overall effectiveness of the funding evaluation.
1. Familiarize Yourself with the Evaluation Criteria:
Before starting the review process, it is essential for external reviewers to thoroughly understand the evaluation criteria. This includes the specific objectives, expected outcomes, and key indicators outlined in the funding evaluation guidelines. By having a clear understanding of the criteria, reviewers can provide more accurate and relevant feedback.
2. Maintain Objectivity and Impartiality:
External reviewers should approach the evaluation process with objectivity and impartiality. It is important to set aside personal biases and focus solely on the merits of the proposal or project being reviewed. By maintaining objectivity, reviewers can ensure fairness and integrity in the evaluation process.
3. provide Constructive feedback:
When providing feedback, external reviewers should aim to offer constructive criticism that helps improve the proposal or project. It is important to highlight both strengths and weaknesses, providing specific examples and suggestions for improvement. By offering actionable feedback, reviewers can contribute to the development and refinement of the evaluated work.
4. Respect confidentiality and Non-Disclosure agreements:
External reviewers must adhere to confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. The information shared during the evaluation process is often sensitive and should not be disclosed or discussed outside of the designated review channels. Respecting confidentiality ensures the integrity and trustworthiness of the evaluation process.
5. Meet Deadlines and Commitments:
Timeliness is crucial in the evaluation process. External reviewers should adhere to the assigned deadlines and commitments. This includes submitting reviews within the specified timeframe and attending review meetings or discussions as required. By meeting deadlines and commitments, reviewers contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of the evaluation process.
6. Continuously Enhance Expertise:
External reviewers should strive to continuously enhance their expertise in the relevant field. This can be achieved through professional development activities, attending conferences or workshops, and staying updated with the latest research and trends. By staying knowledgeable and informed, reviewers can provide more valuable insights and recommendations.
Remember, these best practices are intended to guide external reviewers in conducting thorough and effective evaluations. By following these guidelines, reviewers can contribute to the overall success of the funding evaluation process.
Best Practices for External Reviewers - Funding Evaluation Review: How to Conduct and Participate in Peer Review and External Review of Funding Evaluation
2.Best Practices for External Claim Validation Process[Original Blog]
1. Clearly Define the Validation Criteria
The first step in ensuring an effective external claim validation process is to clearly define the validation criteria. This involves identifying the specific information or attributes that need to be verified in order to validate a claim. For example, if the claim is related to a person's age, the validation criteria may include verifying their date of birth or government-issued identification.
2. Utilize Multiple Data Sources
Relying on a single data source for claim validation can be risky, as it may not provide comprehensive or accurate information. It is best practice to utilize multiple data sources to cross-reference and validate the claim. This can include government databases, credit bureaus, public records, or even third-party verification services. By using multiple sources, you can increase the reliability and accuracy of the validation process.
3. Implement Real-Time Validation
Real-time validation is crucial to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the claim validation process. By integrating with data providers that offer real-time access to information, you can instantly validate claims as they are made. This not only improves efficiency but also reduces the risk of fraudulent claims. For example, an online retailer can instantly verify a customer's shipping address by connecting to a database that provides real-time address validation.
4. Employ machine Learning and AI techniques
Leveraging machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) techniques can significantly enhance the external claim validation process. By training algorithms on historical data, these technologies can identify patterns and anomalies that may indicate fraudulent claims. For instance, an insurance company can utilize AI to detect patterns of fraudulent medical claims by analyzing vast amounts of historical claims data.
5. Regularly Update Validation Processes
As fraudsters become more sophisticated, it is crucial to regularly update and improve the validation processes. This includes staying up-to-date with the latest fraud trends, technology advancements, and regulatory requirements. By continuously evaluating and enhancing your validation processes, you can ensure that they remain effective and resilient against emerging threats.
Case Study: Financial Institution X
Financial Institution X implemented an external claim validation process to verify customer income information for loan applications. By utilizing multiple data sources, including tax records and employment databases, they were able to cross-reference and validate the income claims. This resulted in a significant reduction in loan defaults and fraudulent applications, leading to improved risk management and customer satisfaction.
Tips:
- Always keep data privacy and security in mind when accessing external data sources.
- Regularly audit and monitor the validation process to identify any potential weaknesses or areas for improvement.
- Collaborate with industry peers and regulatory bodies to share best practices and stay updated on the latest fraud prevention strategies.
By following these best practices for external claim validation, organizations can build a secure digital identity ecosystem that minimizes the risk of fraud and ensures the integrity of the claims being made.
Best Practices for External Claim Validation Process - External Claim Validation Process: Building a Secure Digital Identity
3.Best Practices for External Auditors in Providing Negative Assurance[Original Blog]
After exploring the various aspects of providing negative assurance as an external auditor, it's important to consider the best practices that should be followed to ensure the effectiveness of the process. These practices are essential to maintain the credibility of the audit report and mitigate the risk of material misstatements or omissions that could damage the reputation of the auditor and the client. From the perspective of the auditor, client management, and stakeholders, the following best practices are recommended:
1. conduct a thorough risk assessment: Before providing negative assurance, auditors should conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of the client's financial statements. This includes understanding the nature of the client's business, its internal control systems, and the risks associated with the audit engagement. By identifying and assessing risks, auditors can determine the scope of the work needed to provide negative assurance and tailor it to the specific circumstances of the client.
2. Document the process: It's important for auditors to maintain detailed documentation of the process followed to provide negative assurance. This includes documenting the procedures performed, the evidence obtained, and the conclusions reached. This documentation provides a record of the audit work performed and enables the auditor to support their conclusions in the event of any challenges.
3. Maintain independence and objectivity: Independence and objectivity are critical to the credibility of the audit report. Auditors should ensure that they maintain their independence throughout the engagement and that their conclusions are based on objective evidence. Any conflicts of interest or threats to independence should be identified and managed appropriately.
4. Communicate findings clearly: Auditors should communicate their findings and conclusions clearly and effectively to the client and stakeholders. This includes highlighting any material weaknesses or significant risks identified during the audit and providing recommendations for improvement. By communicating effectively, auditors can help clients to address any issues identified and enhance the quality of their financial reporting.
5. Stay up-to-date with regulations and standards: Auditors should stay up-to-date with the latest regulations and standards related to providing negative assurance. This includes keeping abreast of changes to auditing standards and regulations, as well as any emerging risks or issues that may impact the audit engagement. By staying informed, auditors can ensure that they are providing the most effective and relevant audit services to their clients.
Providing negative assurance as an external auditor requires a commitment to best practices that ensure the credibility and effectiveness of the audit report. By following these best practices, auditors can help their clients to improve the quality of their financial reporting and provide stakeholders with the assurance they need to make informed decisions about the business.
Best Practices for External Auditors in Providing Negative Assurance - Navigating the Role of External Auditors in Providing Negative Assurance
4.Best Practices for Using External Claims[Original Blog]
1. Limit the Number of External Claims:
When using external claims in OAuth 2.0 for user authorization, it is important to consider the number of claims you include in your requests. Including too many claims can lead to bloated access tokens and unnecessary information being exchanged between the authorization server and the resource server.
For example, let's say you have a social media application that allows users to sign in with their Facebook account. Instead of requesting all possible user attributes from Facebook, such as name, email, friends list, and profile picture, carefully consider the specific claims that are necessary for your application's functionality. In this case, you might only need the user's name and email address.
By limiting the number of external claims, you can reduce the size of access tokens, improve performance, and minimize the risk of exposing sensitive user information.
2. Validate and Verify External Claims:
External claims provided by the authorization server should always be validated and verified before trusting them. This is crucial to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the claims, as well as to prevent potential security vulnerabilities.
For instance, if you are using an external identity provider like Google, it is essential to verify the issued tokens and validate the claims contained within them. This can involve checking the token's signature, expiration date, and issuer information. Additionally, you should verify that the claims match the expected format and content.
By thoroughly validating and verifying external claims, you can mitigate the risk of accepting tampered or forged claims, ensuring the integrity of user authorization.
3. Handle Claims Mappings and Transformation:
In some scenarios, the claims provided by the authorization server may not align directly with the claims required by your resource server. In such cases, it is necessary to handle claims mappings and transformations to bridge the gap between the two.
For example, let's suppose you are using an external identity provider for user authentication, but your application requires a specific claim format or naming convention. In this situation, you can use a claims transformation process to map the external claims to the desired format or rename them accordingly.
By effectively handling claims mappings and transformations, you can seamlessly integrate external claims into your application's authorization flow, ensuring compatibility and consistency.
4. Consider privacy and Data protection:
When dealing with external claims, it is crucial to consider privacy and data protection regulations. Ensure that you only request and process the minimum amount of personal information necessary for your application's functionality. Respect user consent and clearly communicate how their data will be used.
For instance, if your application requires access to a user's location information, make sure to request explicit consent and provide clear explanations on why this information is necessary. Additionally, implement appropriate security measures to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the collected data.
By prioritizing privacy and data protection, you can build trust with your users and comply with relevant regulations.
Case Study: Spotify and External Claims
Spotify, the popular music streaming platform, allows users to sign in using their Facebook or Apple accounts. By leveraging external claims, Spotify simplifies the authentication process for users while obtaining the necessary information to personalize their music recommendations.
For example, when a user signs in with their Facebook account, Spotify requests specific external claims such as the user's name, email, and profile picture. These claims are then used to create a personalized user profile within the Spotify app, tailoring music recommendations based on the user's interests and social connections.
By utilizing external claims effectively, Spotify enhances the user experience and optimizes their music streaming service.
Tips for Utilizing External Claims:
- Always consider the necessity of each claim and limit the number of claims to avoid bloated access tokens.
- Thoroughly validate and verify external claims to ensure the authenticity and integrity of user authorization.
- Handle claims mappings and transformations to align the external claims with your resource server's requirements.
- Prioritize privacy and data protection, requesting only the minimum necessary information and implementing appropriate security measures.
Incorporating these best practices for using external claims in OAuth 2.0 can simplify user authorization, enhance security, and improve the overall user experience.
Best Practices for Using External Claims - OAuth 2 0 and External Claims: Simplifying User Authorization
5.Best Practices for Token-based External Claims[Original Blog]
1. Use standardized token formats:
When implementing token-based external claims, it is crucial to adhere to standardized token formats such as JSON Web Tokens (JWT) or Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML). These formats provide a secure and interoperable way to exchange claims between different systems. By utilizing standardized formats, you can ensure compatibility and ease of integration with various applications and services.
2. Implement secure token issuance and validation mechanisms:
To maintain data integrity and security, it is essential to implement robust token issuance and validation mechanisms. This includes securely generating and signing tokens, as well as verifying their authenticity and integrity during the validation process. Employing cryptographic algorithms, such as RSA or HMAC, can enhance the security of token-based external claims.
3. Limit the scope and lifetime of tokens:
To minimize the potential impact of compromised tokens, it is recommended to limit their scope and lifetime. Tokens should only contain the essential claims required for the specific use case, reducing the risk of exposing sensitive information. Additionally, setting expiration times for tokens ensures that they are only valid for a limited period, reducing the window of opportunity for malicious actors to exploit them.
4. Use appropriate token encryption:
When transmitting token-based external claims over insecure channels, it is crucial to encrypt them to prevent unauthorized access and tampering. Utilizing transport layer security (TLS) protocols, such as HTTPS, ensures that the communication between the token issuer and the recipient remains confidential and secure.
5. Implement token revocation mechanisms:
In scenarios where token-based external claims need to be revoked, it is essential to implement mechanisms for token revocation. This allows the token issuer to invalidate compromised or expired tokens promptly. Token revocation can be achieved through various means, such as maintaining a revocation list, using token blacklisting, or implementing token introspection endpoints.
6. Employ multi-factor authentication:
To enhance the security of token-based external claims, it is advisable to implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) mechanisms. MFA adds an extra layer of security by requiring users to provide additional credentials or verification factors, such as a one-time password (OTP) or a biometric scan. By combining MFA with token-based external claims, you can strengthen the authentication process and mitigate the risk of unauthorized access.
7. Regularly monitor and audit token activities:
Monitoring and auditing token activities can provide valuable insights into potential security threats and vulnerabilities. By implementing robust logging mechanisms and analyzing token-related events, you can detect suspicious activities, identify patterns, and respond promptly to any security incidents. Regularly reviewing token logs and conducting security audits ensures the ongoing integrity and security of token-based external claims.
Following these best practices for token-based external claims can significantly enhance data integrity and security. By utilizing standardized formats, implementing secure issuance and validation mechanisms, limiting token scope and lifetime, encrypting tokens, implementing revocation mechanisms, employing MFA, and monitoring token activities, organizations can ensure the integrity and security of their data while leveraging the benefits of token-based external claims.
Best Practices for Token based External Claims - Token based External Claims: Ensuring Data Integrity and Security
6.The role of external reviewers and rating agencies in verifying and evaluating sustainable bond issuers and projects[Original Blog]
One of the key challenges in the sustainable bond market is to ensure that the bond issuers and the projects they finance are aligned with the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria and objectives of the investors and the stakeholders. This is where the role of external reviewers and rating agencies becomes crucial, as they provide independent and objective assessments of the sustainability performance and impact of the bond issuers and projects. In this section, we will explore how external reviewers and rating agencies operate in the sustainable bond market, what are the benefits and limitations of their services, and what are the best practices and standards for selecting and engaging with them.
Some of the main functions of external reviewers and rating agencies in the sustainable bond market are:
1. Pre-issuance review: This involves verifying and validating the bond issuer's sustainability framework, strategy, and policies, as well as the eligibility, selection, and evaluation criteria of the projects to be financed by the bond proceeds. The external reviewers and rating agencies may also provide an opinion on the alignment of the bond with the relevant market standards and principles, such as the Green Bond Principles, the Social Bond Principles, or the Sustainability Bond Guidelines. For example, Sustainalytics is a leading provider of pre-issuance reviews for sustainable bonds, and has issued over 1,000 second-party opinions for green, social, and sustainability bonds since 2014.
2. Post-issuance review: This involves monitoring and reporting on the allocation of the bond proceeds to the eligible projects, as well as the environmental and social impacts and outcomes of the projects. The external reviewers and rating agencies may also verify and assure the accuracy and completeness of the bond issuer's disclosure and reporting on the use and impact of the bond proceeds. For example, DNV GL is a global assurance provider that offers post-issuance verification and assurance services for sustainable bonds, and has verified over 100 green and social bond reports since 2015.
3. Sustainability rating: This involves evaluating and scoring the bond issuer's overall ESG performance, risk, and impact, as well as the specific ESG characteristics and features of the bond. The external reviewers and rating agencies may also provide a relative ranking or comparison of the bond issuer and the bond with their peers or benchmarks. For example, Moody's is a leading credit rating agency that also provides sustainability ratings for bond issuers and bonds, and has rated over 500 green, social, and sustainability bonds since 2016.
The benefits of external reviewers and rating agencies in the sustainable bond market include:
- Enhancing credibility and transparency: By providing independent and objective assessments of the bond issuer's and the project's sustainability performance and impact, external reviewers and rating agencies can increase the confidence and trust of the investors and the stakeholders in the bond issuer's commitment and accountability to ESG issues and objectives.
- Facilitating access and pricing: By providing credible and comparable information and opinions on the bond issuer's and the bond's sustainability performance and impact, external reviewers and rating agencies can help the bond issuer attract and diversify their investor base, as well as potentially lower their cost of capital and improve their market conditions and terms.
- Promoting best practices and standards: By providing guidance and feedback on the bond issuer's and the project's sustainability performance and impact, external reviewers and rating agencies can encourage and support the bond issuer to adopt and follow the best practices and standards in the sustainable bond market, as well as to improve and innovate their ESG policies and practices.
The limitations of external reviewers and rating agencies in the sustainable bond market include:
- Lack of consistency and comparability: Due to the diversity and complexity of the ESG issues and objectives, as well as the lack of universally agreed and harmonized definitions, methodologies, and criteria, external reviewers and rating agencies may have different approaches and perspectives on how to assess and measure the sustainability performance and impact of the bond issuers and projects. This may result in inconsistent and incomparable outcomes and opinions, which may confuse or mislead the investors and the stakeholders.
- Lack of regulation and oversight: Due to the voluntary and self-regulatory nature of the sustainable bond market, as well as the lack of formal and mandatory requirements and rules, external reviewers and rating agencies may have different levels and types of quality, reliability, and accountability for their services and products. This may result in potential conflicts of interest, biases, or errors, which may compromise the credibility and transparency of the external reviewers and rating agencies.
- Lack of impact and influence: Due to the limited and indirect role of the external reviewers and rating agencies in the sustainable bond market, as well as the lack of binding and enforceable obligations and consequences, external reviewers and rating agencies may have limited impact and influence on the actual sustainability performance and impact of the bond issuers and projects. This may result in potential greenwashing, social washing, or sustainability washing, which may undermine the integrity and effectiveness of the sustainable bond market.
The best practices and standards for selecting and engaging with external reviewers and rating agencies in the sustainable bond market include:
- Choosing reputable and experienced providers: The bond issuer should select external reviewers and rating agencies that have a proven track record and reputation in the sustainable bond market, as well as relevant expertise and experience in the ESG issues and objectives of the bond issuer and the projects. The bond issuer should also check the credentials and qualifications of the external reviewers and rating agencies, as well as their adherence and alignment with the recognized and respected market standards and principles, such as the International Capital Market Association (ICMA) or the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI).
- Defining clear and comprehensive scope and terms: The bond issuer should define and agree on the clear and comprehensive scope and terms of the external review and rating services, such as the objectives, criteria, methodology, data sources, timeline, deliverables, fees, and liabilities. The bond issuer should also ensure that the external review and rating services are consistent and compatible with the bond issuer's sustainability framework, strategy, and policies, as well as the relevant market standards and principles.
- Disclosing and communicating the results and opinions: The bond issuer should disclose and communicate the results and opinions of the external review and rating services to the investors and the stakeholders, as well as to the public and the media, in a timely, accurate, and transparent manner. The bond issuer should also explain and justify the rationale and assumptions behind the results and opinions, as well as the limitations and uncertainties of the external review and rating services. The bond issuer should also respond and address any questions, comments, or feedback from the investors and the stakeholders, as well as the external reviewers and rating agencies.
The role of external reviewers and rating agencies in verifying and evaluating sustainable bond issuers and projects - Bond Sustainability: How to Assess the Sustainability Performance and Impact of Bond Issuers and Projects
7.The Benefits of Hiring External Reviewers for Cost Model Validation[Original Blog]
One of the most important aspects of cost model validation is ensuring that the model is reviewed by qualified and independent reviewers who can provide an objective and unbiased assessment of the model's accuracy, reliability, and suitability for its intended purpose. Hiring external reviewers for cost model validation can offer several benefits for the model owner, the model user, and the model stakeholders. In this section, we will discuss some of these benefits from different perspectives and provide some tips on how to select and engage the best external reviewers for your cost model validation project.
Some of the benefits of hiring external reviewers for cost model validation are:
- Enhanced credibility and confidence: External reviewers can enhance the credibility and confidence in the cost model by providing an independent and expert opinion on the model's quality, validity, and robustness. This can help the model owner to demonstrate compliance with the relevant standards and regulations, as well as to communicate the model results and assumptions to the model user and the model stakeholders in a transparent and convincing manner. For example, if the cost model is used to support a business case or a funding proposal, having an external validation report can increase the chances of approval and acceptance by the decision-makers and the funders.
- improved quality and performance: External reviewers can help to improve the quality and performance of the cost model by identifying and correcting any errors, inconsistencies, gaps, or limitations in the model's design, structure, data, calculations, or documentation. This can help to avoid potential risks and uncertainties associated with the model's outputs and outcomes, as well as to optimize the model's efficiency and usability. For example, if the cost model is used to estimate the cost of a complex project or a program, having an external validation can ensure that the model reflects the best available information and methods, and that the model can handle different scenarios and sensitivities effectively.
- Increased learning and innovation: External reviewers can provide valuable feedback and insights on the cost model's strengths and weaknesses, as well as on the best practices and the latest developments in the field of cost modeling and validation. This can help the model owner to learn from the external reviewers' experience and expertise, and to incorporate their suggestions and recommendations into the model's improvement and enhancement. This can also foster a culture of continuous learning and innovation within the model owner's organization, and encourage the model owner to seek new and better ways of developing and validating cost models. For example, if the cost model is used to support a strategic planning or a policy analysis, having an external validation can stimulate the model owner to explore new data sources, new modeling techniques, or new validation approaches that can improve the model's relevance and value.
By helping New Yorkers turn their greatest expense - their home - into an asset, Airbnb is a vehicle that artists, entrepreneurs, and innovators can use to earn extra money to pursue their passion.