Key questions for PET:

Between integrating PICO annotation widget in RevMan Web and Study and reference curation and flow, which one should we focus on getting ready for Q4 first?
Between those two and moving forward on Retiring RM5 (supporting all review types), what should we expect to prioritize for Q4?

	PICO annotation widget in RevMan Web	Study and reference curation and flow	Supporting all review types
Priority	1	2	3
What is the value?	To date the annotator widget is independent from other Cochrane tools. Only 50% of CRGs annotate as it is seen, by many, as an 'extra task'. PICO annotation task is no longer an 'extra task' Eliminates an extra tool to use for annotation work Would be part of the solution for moving towards the singular tagging of content for the CLib Resolve versioning issues	Reduced time spent by authors on reference management. Reduced time spent on copy editing. Reduced amount of low-quality reference data entering CRS.	RevMan Web available for all Cochrane reviews. Retiring RevMan 5 for Cochrane reviews is possible. -->Development in RevMan Web moves faster without having to consider RevMan 5 compatibility
Does it simplify/shorten the review production process?	For some CGRs this is adding a step to the current process, for others it would be change in which tool annotation is done in.	Yes, that is the key objective.	No, but it does simplify communication and support related to which tool to use.
Does it have the potential to bring revenue via the CLIB?	Yes, by increasing number of reviews annotated. Cost savings: potential reduction in central time spent on annotating development and maintenance by external development team	Reduce draw on the income from CLib (by reducing copy-editing hours that are paid out of that income)	No.
What is the effort?	?	?	More than 3 sprints.
Can we get ready for development in Q4?	To resolve: Who should be annotating? When in the workflow should annotating happen?	?	Yes, RevMan 5 can be used as a template.
Is there an impact on the community and CRG staff?	Yes. If ISs annotate, they need to be informed and the ISs who are not yet annotating would need to be trained. If authors annotate, it's a new task that would require training for both authors and editorial staff.	Yes, ISs and editorial staff trained on new workflow. Authors informed. May impact RevMan 5 compatibility.	Yes, communication to CRGs that RevMan Web is available for all review types and training materials for authors/editors.
Which departments/teams need to coordinate?	RevMan Web team, Linked data team, IS representative, Training and Support Team, EMD	RevMan Web team, Metaxis, IS representative, Training and Support Team	RevMan Web team, EMD, DTA team