Moderation and Review
Version: 1.0
Effective date: 31 October 2026
Language: English
1. Role of the operator
Moderation is carried out by the operator, Riccardo Consolandi. No independent team or external panel is claimed. Contact: riccardo.consolandi.eng@gmail.com.
Moderation determines whether a contribution complies with the service's publication rules. It is separate from automated checks of format, integrity, signature, keys and attestations. Passing technical checks does not oblige the Library to publish content and does not certify rights, quality or endorsement by the device manufacturer.
Moderation rules are applied diligently, objectively and proportionately, taking account of context, severity, repetition and the rights and legitimate interests of those involved, including fundamental rights. Restrictions are not applied arbitrarily.
2. Assessment of submissions
Files and revisions sent through Studio remain pending before approval. The operator considers content, description, declared provenance, associated materials and reported problems. A request for clarification does not constitute universal verification of identity or ownership of rights.
Approval permits publication only while technical, account and access conditions remain satisfied. Revoked keys or attestations, invalid files, removals and restrictions may make content non-distributable even after previous approval. Technical verification is not an absolute guarantee against unlawful or malicious content.
3. Decisions and reasons
Decisions may concern approval or rejection, removal, temporary restriction and account suspension. Relevant reasons include rights, unauthorised redistribution, excluded captures, unlawfulness, security, personal data, misleading metadata and rule violations.
The structured process retains the action, reason, subject, status, times and links to subsequent decisions. Information made available to the recipient is separate from private notes, reporter data and security details not intended for the public. A missing historical statement of reasons is not reconstructed through fictitious declarations.
Severity, repetition, context and relevant history may contribute to the measure taken. There is no automatic three-strikes rule or promise of advance warning in every case. Rejection of a model does not automatically amount to account suspension.
Where a decision restricts visibility, removes content or suspends or terminates the service or account for alleged unlawfulness or incompatibility with the Terms, the recipient is entitled, where applicable and where the relevant electronic contact is known, to a clear and specific statement of reasons. The communication indicates the measure taken, its scope and duration where relevant, the main facts and reasons, the relevant legal or contractual basis, any use of automated tools and available remedies. The reporter's identity is not disclosed automatically; any identifying information is communicated only where necessary to understand the alleged unlawfulness or otherwise required, respecting data minimisation.
4. Reports and temporary restrictions
A report proceeds through receipt, assessment and a decision to retain, remove or restrict. Restriction temporarily makes the model non-public and unavailable for download during a specific investigation: it is not a final declaration of unlawfulness or a private-hosting service.
Retaining content or lifting a restriction does not automatically republish removed content, closed accounts or files that are no longer technically valid. To submit a report, consult the Report/Takedown Policy.
5. Corrections and revisions
If a first publication attempt is rejected, the author may correct the same entry and send a new candidate from Studio, with matching file and signature, where the case remains available and has not been removed or deleted. New approval is required; the history of previous decisions and files is not deleted or replaced retroactively.
This correction is separate from a request to review the decision on the previous content. It is not authorisation to republish a removed file or circumvent suspension.
A pending revision does not automatically replace a published one. Metadata-change proposals for published models remain private until a decision: if rejected, the previously approved data remains. Proposals cannot bypass restrictions, removals or family and licensing constraints.
6. Receipt of decisions and time limit
The recipient may consult decisions through the available account process and explicitly acknowledge receipt. The system calculates the operational 30-day period for an ordinary review request of eligible decisions from the first acknowledgement. Mere presence in the list or a queued email does not amount to such acknowledgement.
Suspended accounts may authenticate in a restricted 15-minute session to consult their own suspension decision, acknowledge receipt and request review, without ordinary access to contributions, Studio or administration. A new sign-in may be needed when the session expires.
The 30-day period concerns the ordinary internal procedure, subject to any longer period mandatorily required by applicable law; it does not replace other remedies required by law. If you cannot access the process or believe it does not cover your case, use the general contact.
7. Requesting review
For rejection, removal and suspension in supported cases, the recipient may submit an ordinary reasoned request relating to the decision, within the time limit and while the case needed for assessment is available. The system does not provide an automatic second internal level for the review decision.
The operator assesses the material, records a new reasoned decision linked to the previous one and, where the relevant process permits, may reopen the case. The same administrator may handle review: they are not presented as an independent arbitrator. Any restoration of an account or content requires the relevant actions and checks; review does not automatically make a model public or reactivate an account.
Reporters without an account do not automatically have a private review area. They may contact the operator, identifying the case and relevant elements. The internal procedure does not limit recourse to authorities or other mandatory rights.
8. Data and procedural limits
Decisions, requests and relevant information are retained under the Privacy Policy: moderation history ordinarily for three years from the final decision; reports for three years from closure; files and evidence according to their respective categories and justified holds on deletion.
No favourable outcome, universal response times or detection of every violation is promised. Correcting an error does not imply invalidity of third-party rights or automatic deletion of every necessary piece of evidence.