Specific scope
A reviewer responds only within the language, place, practice or experience they agree to address. One review never represents all Balinese people.
Working protocol · version 0.1.0
Cultural review is a relationship, not a badge.
emBaliment distinguishes authored language from words received through Bali. A received word remains a working note until its context, wording and form of credit have been reviewed with an appropriate local reader.
What review means here
Visible provenance
The page records who reviewed what, when, and in which capacity — unless the reviewer explicitly prefers anonymity.
Consent and compensation
Credit, anonymity, time, compensation and permitted use are agreed before a review is presented publicly.
Right to revise
A reviewer may correct their contribution or ask for attribution to be removed. emBaliment records material revisions rather than silently rewriting the past.
No endorsement by implication
Review of one entry does not imply support for LeMatt, the Embalimeter, the Circle, partners, investors or the project as a whole.
Limits remain limits
Restricted, ceremonial, familial or otherwise sensitive knowledge does not become publishable merely because emBaliment asks about it.
The review sequence
- 01Identify
Find a reader whose language, locality, lineage, profession or lived practice is relevant to the specific entry.
- 02Agree
Set scope, format, credit or anonymity, compensation, permitted quotation and the right to amend before the review begins.
- 03Contextualise
Ask where the working note is too broad, romanticised, inaccurate or insensitive, and which variations or limits must remain visible.
- 04Record
Preserve the reviewed wording, reviewer preference, date, scope and version in the cultural review register.
- 05Publish carefully
Change the status only for the reviewed entry and scope. Never convert a specific review into universal cultural authority.
- 06Revisit
Keep a route for correction, disagreement and retirement. A living lexicon must be able to admit that it was wrong.
Current register
All eight received entries are presently authored contextual notes. No credited local review has yet been recorded, so none is labelled “locally reviewed”.
| Entry | Status | Reviewer | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taksu | Working note | Not yet recorded | Identify scope-appropriate Balinese reader. |
| Sekala · Niskala | Working note | Not yet recorded | Identify scope-appropriate Balinese reader. |
| Tri Hita Karana | Working note | Not yet recorded | Identify scope-appropriate Balinese reader. |
| Rwa Bhineda | Working note | Not yet recorded | Identify scope-appropriate Balinese reader. |
| Panganjali | Working note | Not yet recorded | Identify scope-appropriate Balinese reader. |
| Odalan | Working note | Not yet recorded | Identify scope-appropriate Balinese reader. |
| Balian | Working note | Not yet recorded | Identify scope-appropriate Balinese reader. |
| Karma Pala | Working note | Not yet recorded | Identify scope-appropriate Balinese reader. |
What this protocol does not do
It does not appoint emBaliment as an authority on Bali. It does not make one person representative of an island, religion or language. It does not turn payment into approval, or attribution into ownership.
It creates a visible obligation: when emBaliment receives language from a living culture, the project must show who shaped its understanding, what remains uncertain and how correction can enter the record.
Machine-readable working register: cultural-review.json · No online publication or reviewer assignment has been made by this local prototype.