Six screens, end to end. A new kaikōrero joins, asks for help across iwi, accepts a proposal, has the work kaitiaki-reviewed, and ends up in the public cultural lineage that funders can inspect.
Discovery surface, not a profile-page selfie
A new kaikōrero sets their cultural-knowledge areas (with iwi or region scope), declares their iwi affiliations, and opts into the public directory. Both opt-in flags must be set for the profile to render publicly — one gate alone is not enough.
Cultural-knowledge bio
I carry pūrākau of Tāne-rore and the Tāne-mahuta kōrero of Ngāti Whātua. I can help verify the cultural accuracy of waiata about Tāne and the te ao mārama cycle.
Knowledge areas (with iwi/region scope)
Both this profile and the public-directory opt-in must be set to appear in the directory.
Cultural-integrity decision
The platform does not collect demographic data speculatively. Knowledge areas are declared by the person who carries them, scoped to the iwi or region where that knowledge lives. Attestation is a separate signal that emerges from contribution, not self-assertion.
Asking the kāhui, not asking one person
When a creator needs cultural verification, te reo review, mentorship, or a co-creator for a release, they post a tono. They pick a help type, a knowledge area, an optional iwi/region scope, and a visibility tier (open, iwi_specific, or invited).
I've written a waiata about the Tāne-mahuta story that draws on our iwi's telling, but I want a kaikōrero who carries Ngāti Porou's specific version to verify the pūrākau before I record. Tautoko welcome.
Tono board view, creator perspective. Visibility tier shown (open / iwi_specific / invited). The request body is visible to the creator’s own dashboard; iwi_specific tono are only visible to attested members of the scope iwi.
Cultural-integrity decision
Open tono are dashboard-private by design. The public surface only ever shows resolved tono (fulfilled, closed, withdrawn). This is the §5.1 cultural-integrity rule: the work-in-progress of asking for help is dignified space, not performance.
Discovery via specificity, not search
Other kaikōrero see open tono in their dashboard inbox. The list is filtered server-side by their attested iwi affiliations (iwi_specific tono only surface to attested members) and optional knowledge-area filter. No one sees all open tono — that's a privacy and quality-of-attention decision.
Server-side filter. Only iwi_specific tono where the viewer’s attested set includes scope_iwi. Claimed iwi is ignored here.
Need pūrākau verification on 'Tada Koe Hitotsu'…
Looking for a co-creator for a pūrākau cycle about Hine-nui-te-pō…
Tāne-mahuta narrative. would value your cultural check…
Cultural-integrity decision
iwi_specific visibility is checked against attested, not claimed, iwi affiliations. The 30-day promotion window from claimed to attested is the §4.9 layered-defence mechanism that prevents casual impersonation. No amount of clicking 'I belong to iwi X' on a form gives someone access to iwi-X-private tono.
Mutual commitment, mutual visibility
A proposer writes what they can contribute, what koha they accept (often $0, often co-credit, often 'reciprocity later'). The creator accepts, declines, or counter-proposes. Once accepted, the tono moves to in_conversation — visible only to the two parties.
Mere (Ngāti Porou) · proposal accepted by Hine (Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei)
In conversation. Hine is reviewing the pūrākau of Tāne-mahuta. Once verified, Mere will mark the tono fulfilled, which auto-creates a co_creator endorsement from Mere → Hine.
Privacy
The proposal text and any decline reasons stay private to the two parties. Only the fulfilled outcome joins the public lineage.
Cultural-integrity decision
Proposals and decline reasons stay private to the two parties. Only the resolved outcome (fulfilled) joins the public lineage. This is the reciprocal trust space: creators and helpers can be honest because the conversation isn't on display.
Verification, append-only lineage
When the work lands, the kaitiaki reviews the release. Approval auto-creates a co_creator endorsement for every split_participant on the release, with their contribution_count bumped by one. The cultural-review audit row stands regardless of endorsement creation success — the gate is sacred, the endorsements are derived state.
Cultural review audit row written to cultural_review_cycles (append-only).
Auto-endorsements created for split_participants
If the endorsement insert fails, the cultural-review audit row is preserved. The audit is sacred; endorsements are derived state.
Cultural-integrity decision
Endorsements are append-only with revocation. Once an endorsement is given, the only change is revocation (with reason visible to all parties and on the public profile). The revocation, not deletion, is the §4 transparency mechanism. kaitiaki can withdraw their cultural standing for a work, and the lineage records that they did.
The work, not the popularity
The kaikōrero's public profile now shows their contribution lineage — who endorsed them, for what knowledge, scoped to which iwi or work. A separate public collaborations index surfaces resolved activity across the kāhui, filterable by iwi and knowledge area. There are no leaderboards, no 'top collaborators', no aggregate counts on individuals.
A bell badge surfaces the new endorsement. The user can drill into the lineage.
The public lineage (visible on Hine’s kaikōrero profile and the collaborations index)
No aggregate counts on Hine’s profile. No “47 endorsements” badge. Specificity over aggregation. see PLAN §4.3.
Cultural-integrity decision
Specificity over aggregation (PLAN §4.3). A kaikōrero with 47 endorsements doesn't appear more credible than one with 4 — because we don't surface the 47. We surface the specific endorsements: 'Hine carries the pūrākau of Tāne' is verifiable. '47 endorsements' is gamification dressed as credibility.
Every endorsement is a public, append-only record. Every tono is dashboard-private while open and only joins the public lineage once it’s resolved. There are no aggregate scores on individuals, no leaderboards, no ratings. The kāhui surfaces specific, verifiable contribution. not popularity.
When a Creative NZ assessor clicks into a kaikōrero, they see a cultural lineage: who carried which knowledge into which work, who endorsed whom, and which tono landed. The audit trail is the system.