We're looking for a solution or best practice to handle this situation: sometimes, a metric data assignee or approver will encounter one of these scenarios AFTER an ESG metric task has been completed:

• A realization that, despite the metric value having been approved, it is nevertheless inaccurate, insufficiently precise, etc.
• The calculation method for the value needs to change, and hence the value needs to be updated (e.g., due to a change in emissions modelling / best-practice calculation approaches).
• Newly available support/evidence has been identified that should be attached to the metric as a supporting attachment.

In some cases, this merely calls for an update/replacement of the original value; in other cases, the value needs to be restated (adjusted) so that it lives alongside the original value.

The problem is that, typically, it is the metric assignees/approvers who first have the awareness that something needs to be changed/restated, not the ESG Program managers, and sometimes the former do not know the latter. So to get the task reset to allow for an updated value or a restatement (etc.), there is the usual back-and-forth of e-mails and messages to connect the right people so that the metric data collection process can be opened back up. While some of that can be handled with instructions, etc., it would be nice if an assignee or approver could request the task be reset and/or reset it themselves with the program team notified.