---
title: "Separate requester, reviewer, approver, and executor."
description: "Make role conflicts and reviewer requirements explicit so one actor cannot silently own every authority step."
updated: "30 August 2026"
availability: "LOCAL SIMULATION · TEST_ONLY"
candidate_route: "/docs/raiffa/guides/separate-duties"
---

# Separate requester, reviewer, approver, and executor.

Make role conflicts and reviewer requirements explicit so one actor cannot silently own every authority step.

**LOCAL SIMULATION · TEST_ONLY:** Local validation surfaces and fixed fixtures only · no real login, organizational authority, operational API, external execution, or authority issuance

## Do not collapse four events into one

- REQUESTED — who requested what and why
- REVIEWED — who inspected which evidence and conditions
- APPROVED or DENIED — which policy basis produced the disposition
- EXECUTED — which actor performed the action and what occurred

> **Audit boundary:** An approval record is not execution evidence, and an outcome cannot retroactively make an approval lawful.

## Check role conflicts explicitly

1. **Compare requester and reviewer** — Do not allow the same actor when policy requires independent review.
2. **Compare approver and executor** — Keep execution separate for actions that require it.
3. **Inspect the delegation chain** — Reject self-approval and circular delegation.
4. **Apply step-up conditions** — Higher-impact scope may require additional assurance or another reviewer.

## Reviewer context is versioned evidence

A displayed name or role label does not establish reviewer authority. Bind reviewer context to current policy, delegation, session assurance, scope, and revocation revision.

> **Current state:** Separation-of-duty packages and console screens are local TEST_ONLY scenarios, not organizational approval evidence.

---

Published route: /docs/raiffa/guides/separate-duties