CTC opens call for ATP evaluators, requires training and conflict forms; evaluators will not be allowed to use AI
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The commission invited evaluators for Cycle 8, described team-based scoring, mandatory training and conflict-of-interest disclosures, and said evaluators may not use AI in their review; applicants may use AI with caution.
The California Transportation Commission on Feb. 5 outlined who can serve as evaluators for Cycle 8 of the Active Transportation Program, the review timeline and training requirements, and clarified policies about artificial intelligence.
Alika described eligibility and process: evaluators must be involved in active transportation in California, have relevant subject-matter knowledge, attend a mandatory three‑hour training, submit a conflict-of-interest form and agree to collaborate in two‑person teams. Teams will typically review 9–10 applications each, score individually, then develop a consensus scoring form; commission staff will perform a check score and debrief with evaluator teams in October before staff recommendations are finalized.
On AI, staff drew a clear distinction between applicants and evaluators. While applicants may use AI tools to assist with application drafting, commission staff said they will guide evaluators to spot inconsistent or nonproject-specific AI outputs; when asked directly whether evaluators may use AI in their reviews, the workshop record was explicit: “The answer is no.” (Jaden). Staff said commission check scores and spot checks help detect inconsistent scoring or comments generated by inappropriate tools.
Practical notes and timeline: the call for evaluators will be posted March 1; Submittable training is scheduled for March 26; evaluator trainings are planned for May–June; and final evaluator debriefs and staff recommendation posting will take place later in the calendar (staff recommendations posted Nov. 2 and final adoptions on the commission schedule). Staff invited prospective evaluators to complete an interest intake form and warned that the role requires written comments for each rubric question to help with applicant debriefs and rubric improvement.
The commission encouraged past evaluators to continue and invited applicants to consider evaluating to gain perspective on the review process.