Human verification as operational evidence.
A phone call that resolves an uncertainty is evidence. Treating it as evidence — with origin, time and scope — is what makes it reusable.
The undocumented resolution
In most operations the decisive input is a person who checked. That input typically lives in a chat message, a call, or someone's memory, and disappears from the record while its conclusion stays.
What structure adds
A verification task names the question, the person asked, and the scope of their answer. The response is recorded with a time and an author, and can strengthen an assessment, weaken it, or explicitly leave it open — which is a legitimate and underused outcome.
Not a rubber stamp
Verification that can only confirm is not verification. If a workflow has no path for a reviewer to say the evidence does not support the claim, it is an approval step wearing a different name.
See SKALV with your own operational scenario.
Bring a real scenario — the sources you follow, the functions you cannot lose — and we will show where SKALV fits and where it does not.