# GeNext MedEd Foundation — Appeals & Decision Review Standard

**Document code:** GMEF-ETH-007
**Version:** 1.0
**Status:** Controlled working standard

## Purpose
Defines when and how a participant, faculty member, mentor, researcher or collaborating institution may request review of a Foundation decision affecting programme status, assessment, certification, conduct findings, access or institutional participation.

## Reviewable decisions
Assessment outcome where appeal is permitted; programme progression/completion decision; certificate refusal/revocation; conduct/grievance outcome; research or authorship decision within Foundation authority; host-centre restriction/suspension; other decisions expressly made reviewable.

## Grounds
Material procedural error; relevant evidence not reasonably considered; conflict/bias affecting the decision; decision outside stated criteria/authority; significant new evidence unavailable during original review.

## Not sufficient alone
Disagreement with academic judgement, disappointment with outcome or repetition of previously considered arguments without a recognised review ground.

## Process
1. Written appeal/review request linked to original decision reference.
2. Screening for timeliness, standing and recognised ground.
3. Conflict check and reviewer/committee assignment separate from the sole original decision-maker where practical.
4. Review of record and permitted additional evidence.
5. Outcome: uphold, modify, remit for fresh decision, or other authorised action.
6. Written record and finality/next external route if applicable.

## Safeguard
Filing an appeal does not automatically suspend a protective restriction where safety, privacy, research integrity or credential integrity is at risk; interim status must be documented.