A critical reviewers directory would be great!
As far as the fields are concerned, I would use as much as possible “closed questions” (i.e. a list of check boxes for each field), and leave just one (1) empty space for “open questions” (i.e. additional elements that the reviewer would like to mention).
As far as the content is concerned, I would add ISO/TS 14071 in the list of standards with check boxes, and one empty space to mention additional specific standards (when relevant). I would also add ISO 14025 since PCR critical reviews are relevant, and future ISO 14026 and ISO/TS 14027. And, we could have PEF methodology in the list (even if it is not a standard, and not final yet)!
As far as the review rating is concerned, I am skeptical.
Of course, I listen to my customers (and to my employees), all along the year… and take decisions to make them happier, when possible (it is my interest to do so, of course !). In the case of critical reviews, I reject the fact that the customer may modify my critical review statement after my final delivery, even if he would be happier reading no critic nor limitation… In some cases, I accept to make modifications to the statement before the final delivery, when it makes sense, in others cases… I just keep my statement as it is.
Additionally, this review rating would depend on the level of expertise of the reviewed practitioner/commissioner, who may not be happy of the additional workload / costs he had to do / pay!
Then, it would be a shame if reviewers, in order to get a good review rating in our FSLCI web site, start to be less demanding in their comments!!! When hearing “Hey guy, if you keep this comment in the final statement, then I shall put a bad review rating in the FSLCI interface!”, the (weak) reviewer would answer “ok, I remove/modify my comment”… Even if every critical reviewer will say now “I am never in that situation!” (and maybe it would never occur), a suspicion might be there from third parties which would degrade the benefit of having a list of reviewers on the FSLCI Web site…
What about habilitation? In France, AFNOR has set an habilitation exam for reviewers of EPD done according to NF EN 15804+A1. Of course, a competency evaluation of critical reviewers by FSLCI (by “peers”, not by “unhappy customers”) would be highly welcomed… and difficult to set (it has a cost! Reviewers have to pay more than 1000 euros to be examined)… This recognition would be better than a review rating!
What about a charter? A charter of “critical reviews done according to FSLCI” could also be put in place, with our best practices… and the fact that the critical reviewers registered in the FSLCI directory would accept to follow this charter when they practice critical reviews… The customer can tell if the charter and ISO/TS 14071 requirements have been respected (mainly “closed” questions with indisputable answers). Once again, I would prefer this rating approach to an open review rating.