docs(policy): contributor-relationship policy + recourse — one page, every claim linked to its mechanism

[JSONbored]

Problem

Two things should be written down before they are ever needed: how contributor relationships are handled, and what recourse exists when a contributor believes a verdict was wrong. Both currently live in practice and scattered discussion rather than on one page an outsider can be pointed to.

Scope

Contributor-relationship (conflict-of-interest) policy:

• The uniform pipeline: same gate for every PR, no per-contributor overrides — with pointers to the enforcement code
• The author-based label-eligibility rule and the open-window rule (pipeline(labels): author-based eligibility — gittensor:priority only on maintainer-authored issues, auto-strip elsewhere #9737, gate(eligibility): minimum open-window before PRs against priority issues are gate-eligible #9738)
• Verdict immutability and the published parity metrics (ledger(policy): verdict immutability per head SHA — re-evaluations require a reason code and leave a trail #9742, metrics(ledger): re-evaluation counts and per-author-class review-parity rollups #9743)
• Disclosure practice: personal relationships between maintainers and active contributors are disclosed to the project record; associated PRs follow the standard pipeline with no elevated label eligibility

Recourse (documented honestly, not as an appeals queue):

• Every verdict is independently verifiable offline — the verify walkthrough is the first stop for "I think this is wrong"
• Wrong closes are detected automatically: outcome-confirmation scans realized history (merged / reopened / reverted) and publishes reversal rates on /fairness — the system audits its own mistakes without requiring anyone to file anything
• The remedy for a contested close is resubmission: a new head SHA or fresh PR earns a fresh verdict through the same pipeline
• State plainly why no human appeals queue exists: in a first-come issue market, open issues are typically re-solved before any appeal could conclude, and on-demand re-evaluation of judgment verdicts would reintroduce the selection problem that verdict immutability (ledger(policy): verdict immutability per head SHA — re-evaluations require a reason code and leave a trail #9742) exists to prevent

Placement

Docs site, linked from the label-policy page and CONTRIBUTING.

Acceptance

The policy exists as one page an outsider can be pointed to; every claim in it links to the mechanism that enforces it; the recourse section accurately describes what the system does and does not offer, and why.

[linear-code]

JSO-6807