Open call: a scholarly review path for the compliance engine

[eaitbrahim]

This is an open call, and it is the most important unanswered question the project has.

keel enforces rulings; it does not issue them. Every classification in a deployment is a human attestation with a source and a name. That design keeps the code neutral — but it also means the project's usefulness is bounded by the quality of the rulings its operators can find. Right now the attestation defaults lean on one scholar's published positions (the "KB" sections cited through the code), interpreted by one developer.

What a scholarly review path could look like (nothing here is decided — that is the point of the call):

• One or more reviewers with recognised training in fiqh al-muʿāmalāt willing to look at the mechanism: does the sector/backing/yield attestation model capture the distinctions that matter? Is §65.4 qabd encoded as the right check? Where does the screen's fail-closed stance diverge from a reviewing body's approach?
• A stated way to record a review: an attestation source format that names the reviewer, date, and scope, so an operator's audit trail can carry "reviewed by X on Y" without the project adjudicating between reviewers.
• A route for disagreement that never requires the project to pick a side — local attestations, documented divergences, no upstream merge wars.

What is being asked for first: reactions to the mechanism, not rulings on specific assets. "Your model of backing ('ayn/dayn/native) misses distinction Z" is more valuable than "token T should be halal."

If you have the training, or know a body that might engage: reply here, or open a discussion in this category describing what you would need to review it. Everything is public and deterministic; nothing here requires trusting a black box.