Sherlock V2
  • 👋Intro to Sherlock
  • 🙋FAQ
  • 📚Glossary
  • ‼️Disclaimers
  • Audits
    • 🧑‍💻Protocol Teams
      • How it Works for Protocols
      • Audit Timeline
      • Scheduling Process
      • Audit Preparation
      • Protocol Involvement During the Audit Process
      • Protocol Involvement Post-Audit
      • Rescheduling and Cancellations
      • Interim Updates and Upgrades
    • 🕵️Watsons
      • Lead Senior Watson Selection Process
      • Fix Review Process
      • Contest Points
      • How to Score Issue Points in a Contest
      • Meeting the Payout Criteria
      • First Blood Pot
      • Leaderboard Points Example
      • FAQ
    • 🧑‍⚖️Judging
      • Judging Conduct Guidelines
      • Criteria for Issue Validity
        • Criteria Changelog
      • Lead Judge
      • 🧑‍⚖️Community Judging
      • Dedicated Judge
      • Discussion
      • Sherlock's Exclusive Judging Apprentice Program
    • 🤝Referral Program
  • Bug Bounties
    • 🌱Pre-Launch Bounty
    • 🚀Post-Launch Bounty
      • 📜Platform Rules
      • ⚖️Dispute Resolution
  • Coverage
    • 🛡️Sherlock Shield
    • 💰Stakers
      • Overview
      • Lockup Period
      • Payout Flow
      • Staking APY
    • 🧑‍💻Protocol Teams
      • Getting Started
      • Coverage Premiums
      • Pricing
      • Composability and Coverage
      • Payout Flow
      • FAQ
    • 📝Claims
      • Claims Process
  • Tokens
    • SHER
    • Receipt NFTs
  • Governance
    • Roles
  • Developer
    • Overview
    • Stake Position Lifecycle
    • Claim Lifecycle
    • Protocol Lifecycle
    • SHER Distribution
    • Deployed Contracts
    • Contract Reference
    • Audits
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  1. Audits
  2. Judging

Lead Judge

The lead judge holds the authority to make final decisions on all contest issues.

As Lead Judge, your role is to assess and make decisions on a subset of complex or controversial issues, typically between 1% and 10% of all cases. Your focus will be on issues that are challenging to judge and have been marked as controversial. You are expected to:

  1. Evaluate Issues: Carefully analyze each controversial/escalated issue, balancing the judging guidelines and your own subjective common sense for your decisions. Use clear, reasoned explanations for why each judgment was made, especially when an issue requires subjective interpretation or a nuanced approach.

  2. Use Judgement & Reasoning: While adhering to the guidelines is important, you can override them based on common-sense reasoning when you find it justified. Your decisions should reflect a balanced understanding of the context and potential impacts of each issue. Deviations from the guidelines should be made only in exceptional cases.

  3. Collaborate as Needed: The Sherlock team is available to discuss decisions and provide input. You are encouraged to consult them for brainstorming or clarification, though the individual judgments remain with you.

  4. Ensure Judgement Integrity: The Sherlock team will respect your final decisions unless a strong indication of error is identified.

Deviation Template

When deviating from the judging guidelines, document the decision as follows:

Based on the audit context, the applicable guideline is:

{guideline}

By this guideline, the issue would normally be judged as {severity}.

However, in the context of the protocol's security needs, this guideline conflicts with practical considerations due to:

  • Reason 1

  • Reason 2

  • ...

For these reasons, the issue will be judged as {severity}.

PreviousCriteria ChangelogNextCommunity Judging

Last updated 6 months ago

🧑‍⚖️