Have something to say?
Data collector identity & shared-device security
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Strengthen user identification where multiple data collectors share devices, where collectors do not have individual email addresses, or where an upstream survey/API route does not carry collector details through automatically. Options raised in the SIP demo include capturing stronger identity details such as full name and ID number, improving profile switching on shared devices, maintaining collector attribution separately where required, and exploring biometric or facial-recognition login where this is appropriate and compliant. Vote if this is important for your SIP. Comment with your current device-sharing setup and the minimum identity information you need for audit and continuity.
Evidence & media library with tags, captions and feed
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Turn approved photos, supporting evidence and programme context into a reusable content library for reporting, communications and learning. Ideas raised in the SIP demo include photo tagging, captions and metadata, easier media export, and a feed that helps teams find strong evidence and stories without searching through individual submissions. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the tags, metadata or export formats your communications and M&E teams would find most useful.
Automated narrative summaries
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Generate concise narrative summaries from approved structured and qualitative QuickTrack data to support management reporting and programme learning. For SEF use, any AI-generated narrative used for official reporting should remain subject to human review. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the reports or narrative sections your team spends the most time preparing manually.
Lower-level rule overrides
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Allow selected global indicator rules to be overridden at a lower level, such as a specific Locality or worksite, where operational conditions genuinely differ. This would preserve a common programme standard while allowing carefully controlled exceptions where they are justified. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with examples of rules that need to vary by geography, site or activity.
Indicator assumptions
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Store the assumptions and interpretation notes behind an indicator alongside its configuration and results. This would help SIP and IDC teams understand exactly how a measure should be interpreted, especially where reporting rules are nuanced. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the kinds of assumptions or guidance your teams currently keep outside the system.
OCR, AI and satellite imagery checks
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Explore additional verification methods for evidence-heavy indicators, including OCR, AI-assisted checks and satellite imagery where the method is appropriate and reliable. These tools would support reviewer judgement rather than replace human review. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the evidence types or indicators where an automated verification aid would save the most time.
Cross-checks across indicators
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Support automated checks between related indicators and other relevant programme data so possible inconsistencies are highlighted before final approval. This could include relationships between outputs, attendance, targets or other configured measures where a meaningful rule exists. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the cross-checks your M&E team currently performs manually.
Season-aware anomaly & outlier checks
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Add configurable rules that flag unusual output values before final approval. The demo highlighted that some indicators are seasonal, so the checks should not rely on one fixed threshold. The design under review includes seasonal settings, reporting-period context and indicator-specific thresholds so normal peaks and dips are less likely to be treated as anomalies. Vote if this would help your SIP. Please comment with examples of indicators where seasonality or expected ranges should be taken into account.
Confidence Score v1.0
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Introduce a simple confidence score for granular submissions based on the data and evidence provided. The score could help reviewers focus attention where evidence is weak or inconsistent and summarise confidence upward by worksite, geography, Partner or SIP. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the factors you think should increase or reduce confidence in an output submission.
Automated reminders and notifications
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Use configured reporting deadlines and status to remind the right collectors, reviewers or programme managers when action is due or overdue. Channel options under consideration include email, SMS and WhatsApp, depending on programme needs and delivery costs. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with who should receive reminders, how far in advance they should be sent, and which channels you would prefer.
Conditional questions
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Allow additional questions to appear, change or become required based on earlier answers in the same QuickTrack workflow. This can reduce unnecessary questions and make one form adapt to different indicator, locality or activity contexts. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with an example of the branching logic you would want to configure.
Individual consent and signature capture
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Add configurable individual consent and signature capture where a programme needs a stronger record of consent, acknowledgement or participation. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the situations where you need a signature, what information should appear with it, and whether offline signing is important.
Evidence instructions per indicator
Available now. SIPs can specify evidence requirements for an indicator and add clear instructions about what a required photo or document should show.
Batch review filters
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Make high-volume review faster by letting reviewers work with groups of submissions using filters such as geography, theme, indicator, partner, reporting period and status. The review queue should make it easy to see what is outstanding, what has been referred back and what is ready for approval. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the filters and bulk actions your reviewers would use most often.
Voice recordings
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Allow collectors to add voice recordings or voice notes where this is more practical than typing, especially for richer context, accessibility or low-literacy field environments. Vote if this would help your SIP. Comment with the situations where voice would be most useful and whether recordings should be kept as evidence, transcribed, or both.
Multi-language capture & AI-assisted translation
Phase 2 candidate — in review. Make field collection easier across different languages while keeping official SEF reporting in English. Options under review include multilingual question support, native-language narrative capture and AI-assisted translation back to English, with a mandatory human review step before translated narratives are used for official reporting. Vote if this would help your SIP. In the comments, tell us which languages matter most and where translation support would be most useful.