Does the proposal strengthen an underdeveloped movement or duplicate something already stronger?
PUBLIC SPEAKER-SELECTION FRAMEWORK · VERSION 2.0
Curated does not have to mean mysterious.
How proposals are assessed, who makes decisions, where judgment enters the process and what applicants can expect. Private applications stay private; the system itself is visible.
Transparency means no hidden criteria. It does not mean exposing the people who trusted us with an application.
01 · THE SELECTION JOURNEY
Eight visible stages
Every applicant can see the meaning of each stage. Moving forward at one stage does not guarantee final selection.
01
Submission received
Applicant sees: ReceivedA reference number confirms receipt. The application remains editable only through an approved correction process.
02
Eligibility review
Applicant sees: Eligibility reviewCompleteness, pathway relevance, non-promotional intent, consent and essential availability are checked. This is not a prestige screen.
03
Identity-light proposal review
Applicant sees: Substantive reviewName, title, organization, follower count and referral source are withheld during the first substantive read. Region, context and relevant lived experience remain because they are part of the proposal.
04
Independent assessment
Applicant sees: Substantive reviewAt least two reviewers apply the published rubric. A third review is triggered by a material scoring divergence or declared uncertainty.
05
Portfolio curation
Applicant sees: CurationQualified proposals are mapped across eight UN/UNESCO-grounded movements, regional realities, sectors, disciplines, generations and productive contrasts.
06
Curation conversation
Applicant sees: Conversation requestedShortlisted applicants test the core insight, incoming baton, outgoing question, evidence, format and readiness with the program team.
07
Conditional selection
Applicant sees: Conditional selection or StandbySelected and standby contributors receive a provisional movement, preparation expectations and scheduling window.
08
Program lock
Applicant sees: ConfirmedThe place is confirmed after agreements, content development, conflict review, scheduling and technical readiness.
02 · THE PUBLISHED RUBRIC
What earns serious consideration
A strong score qualifies a proposal for portfolio curation. It does not create an automatic speaking entitlement because LEAD48 must build one coherent global conversation.
CriterionWhat reviewers examineWeight
Theme contributionA clear, consequential idea that advances one published theme rather than restating it.20%
Regional or lived-context groundingSpecificity about place, people, infrastructure, culture, institutions and within-region difference.20%
Evidence and credibilityCredible practice, research, results or lived knowledge, and honesty about limits.15%
Originality and productive contrastAn insight that challenges an assumption or adds a perspective missing from the portfolio.10%
Practical usefulnessA decision principle, practice, framework or question that others can adapt after the session.10%
Baton and handover potentialAbility to receive another region’s question and pass forward a sharper one.10%
Dialogue and collaborationReadiness to engage counterpoints, disclose limitations and develop the contribution with others.10%
Communication and readinessClarity, preparation, format fit, collaboration and reasonable technical readiness.5%
Strong Distinctive evidence exceeds the standardMeets Credible evidence satisfies the standardDeveloping Promising but important evidence is missingInsufficient evidence The application does not yet demonstrate the standard
03 · WHY A HIGH SCORE IS NOT THE WHOLE DECISION
Excellence first. Coherence next.
Sixty individually excellent talks can still produce a poor relay. Portfolio curation happens only after substantive quality is established.
Are regions contributing knowledge across movements rather than being used as theme containers?
Does the portfolio contain informed disagreement, alternative models and productive tension?
Are established and emerging leaders, practitioners, researchers and affected communities present?
Should the idea become a keynote, dialogue, debate, field case, masterclass or synthesis?
Can the contribution meaningfully receive and transform a baton within the actual schedule?
No hidden portfolio veto: when a substantively strong proposal is not selected because the final portfolio cannot accommodate it, the applicant-facing outcome should say so.
04 · DECISION INTEGRITY
Who decides, and what they cannot do
Two-reviewer minimum
Every eligible proposal receives two independent substantive assessments. Material disagreement triggers a third review.
Declared conflicts
Reviewers disclose professional, financial, family, supervisory or close personal relationships and recuse where impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
No self-selection
Founders, planning-team members and Regional Facilitators cannot approve their own speaking place or participate in scoring their own proposal.
No purchased platform
Sponsorship, partnership, referral, title, celebrity or follower count cannot buy or direct a place in the programme.
No automated decision
AI may support clerical checks or identity-light preparation if disclosed. It does not score, shortlist or select speakers.
Recorded reasons
Shortlist, selection, standby and program-lock changes require a reason linked to the published rubric or portfolio framework.
Independent reviewersAssess substantive proposals
→Program & CurationBuild the coherent portfolio
→Speaker & FacultyValidate readiness and fit
→Program DirectorApproves documented program lock
05 · WHAT EACH APPLICANT CAN SEE
A private status window into a public process
Applicants will use email verification to see their own application status. A reference number and email alone will never reveal private data.
Current stage, date last updated and what the stage means.
Requested material, conversation, preparation step or expected decision point.
Strong, Meets, Developing or Insufficient Evidence for each published criterion.
A concise applicant-facing reason category without exposing reviewers or other applicants.
Already applied?
Open applicant statusYour application is kept. The secure status page uses a one-time code sent to the application email.
06 · OUTCOMES, FEEDBACK & CORRECTIONS
Respectful closure is part of selection quality.
Every applicant
Receives the outcome, principal reason category and rubric bands once the relevant decision stage closes.
Shortlisted applicants
Receive a concise, individualized explanation and possible alternative pathway or future-edition recommendation.
Factual-correction window
Applicants may report an administrative error, inaccurate record or undisclosed conflict within five working days.
Curatorial judgment
The correction process does not become public voting or an unrestricted appeal against documented portfolio judgment.
07 · WHAT LEAD48 WILL PUBLISH
An anonymized selection dashboard
An anonymized selection dashboard will be published as contributor selection progresses. After each major stage it reports aggregate progress, without identifying applicants who have not consented to public announcement.
Total applicationsCountries and regionsMovement distributionSector and discipline mixEstablished and emerging voicesShortlist and selection countsStandby capacityRepresentation gaps
Method note required: every dashboard must state the reporting date, denominator, missing-data treatment, category definitions and known limitations. Small groups will be suppressed where disclosure could identify an applicant.
VERSION CONTROL
The rules cannot quietly change after applications arrive.
This framework is version 2.0, published August 28, 2026. Material changes will show what changed, why, who approved it and whether existing applicants are affected. The version accepted by each applicant is stored with the application.