Update public engagement statements based on collab cafes

docs/source/evaluation.md

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ You should score your TRE against each statement in the SATRE specification usin
 :0 Not met: The TRE does not meet this requirement (if this is **Mandatory** this means the TRE is not SATRE compliant)
 :1 Sufficient: The TRE meets this requirement met but there is substantial scope for improvement
 :2 Satisfied: The TRE meets this requirement met but there may still be scope for improvement
-:N/A: Not applicable: The statement is not relevant to a TRE, may apply to **Recommended** or **Optional** statements
+:N/A: Not applicable: The statement is not relevant to a TRE, may apply to **Recommended** or **Optional** statements, and a very limited number of **Mandatory\*** statements.
 
 A score of **1** or above means you have met the requirement.
 Optionally you can use **1** and **2** to indicate potential areas of improvement in your TRE.

docs/source/pillars/supporting.md

@@ -189,18 +189,23 @@ How the {ref}`TRE operator <infrastructure_roles>` involves the public in its pr
   - Guidance
   - Importance
 * - 4.8.1.
-  - You should ensure that all public engagement activities are representative and inclusive.
-  - Any public engagement activity carried out by TREs should make sure they are involving a representative sample where possible and that activities are accessible and open.
+  - All public engagement activities must include a range of perspectives and be inclusive (\*optional for TREs without personal data).
+  - Any public engagement activity carried out by TREs should involve diverse participants and that activities are accessible.
+    Recruitment plans should consider how to proactively reach a representative sample of people or target particular groups of people where relevant
     This could include following guidelines such as [PEDRI](https://www.pedri.org.uk/).
-  - Recommended
+  - Mandatory\*
 * - 4.8.2.
-  - You could publicly share the details of any projects which use the TRE.
-  - This may be via the TRE website or annual reports.
-  - Optional
+  - Details of TRE operations, data available and projects which have accessed the data should be publicly available (\*optional for TREs without personal data).
+  - TREs should be as transparent as possible by providing information online.
+    Where information is made available online this should be written in clear language understandable to general public.
+    A record of projects which have accessed data via the TRE should be kept and made available.
+    Where possible it should include name, summaries, public benefit (if relevant) and organisations involved
+  - Mandatory\*
 * - 4.8.3.
-  - You could include members of the public in your approvals process.
-  - This may be carried out via a separate public panel or by including members of the public on an approvals panel.
-  - Optional
+  - Members of the public should be included in TRE operations and/or oversight (\*optional for TREs without personal data).
+  - Members of the public can be involved via presence on steering groups or project approvals panels.
+    Alternatively TRE's can establish separate public panels available for both researchers and TRE staff to consult.
+  - Mandatory\*
 * - 4.8.4.
   - You should publicly share details of incidents, near misses, and mitigations in a timely fashion, in line with good practices for responsible disclosure.
   - This may be via the TRE website or annual reports.

docs/source/specification.md

@@ -73,6 +73,9 @@ These components are each labelled with an importance:
 :Recommended: Most TREs should have this component, but it is not essential.
 :Optional: Many TREs would benefit from this component, however, we recognise there are reasons a {ref}`TRE operator <infrastructure_roles>` may actively choose not to implement it.
 
+Some components are mandatory in some circumstances but not others.
+These are indicated by an asterisk `Mandatory*`, with details provided in the statement.
+
 {ref}`TRE operator <infrastructure_roles>`s are able to demonstrate that they meet the specification by showing they can fulfil all **mandatory** components.
 Future versions of the specification may introduce more granular levels of evaluation, for instance tiered level of accreditation based on fulfilment of mandatory, recommended and optional components respectively.