That looks promising in general, but the power of one SC to affect the final product seems excessive. (Only two must approve) Perhaps a less linear process with a more distributed system would work better. (Multiple SCs submit revisions or "no revision", they all vote on the preferred option)
What system would you suggest for dealing with users with large amounts of rejected work?
In theory instructions should be so precise that process should be deterministic. Anyone following instructions should (theoretically) arrive at materialy same answer. This is supposed to be a scientific observation, hence reproducible.
In practice human factor is not that easy to account for. Hence need for some arbitration and quality control. SC are supposed to be more experienced and cases when their verdict would be questioned will be so rare that they will not bias the study.
I must admit that I wrote spec with corporate context in mind. I could use some lateral thinking and explore a self-organising network of humans.
Well SC has power to deny reward for inadequate work. In practice such workers drop out very quickly. Of course, repeated offenders will be suspended. Depending on the supply of recruits, suspended users will be retrained or dismissed.