Review subjective monitoring criteria and consider moving to caveats

[serenalomonico]

We have done most, but double check - Do we need to move some of the subjective criteria in monitoring to caveats? Rank research capacity, etc.

[serenalomonico]

May need to revisit monitoring criteria full stop. “Low GVP” for Spanish mackerel, yet they have formal logbooks. Perhaps all should be caveats rather than exclusionary minimum criteria, or need “AND” conditionals – e.g. if low GVP AND no history of formal logbook precedent”

[dtdougherty]

Review questions and consider videos or other prompts for explanation

[dtdougherty]

Consider having criteria color scale like assessment section, so that warnings have more weight on criteria questions than just caveats

[dtdougherty]

After group discussion, we agreed that these will remain with proper guidance to users that there is subjective criteria that helps to hone the initial list and they those should be considered thoughtfully. This promotes bottom-up approach and is strategically designed to address concerns on veracity of FishPath.

1. Add a description in each question that notes it is subjective and how it will be used in the results filtering. 2144, 545, 1548.
2. Adding a video for how to think about these.