(*CiviCRM Review Template MC-1.2*)

<!-- In each category, choose the option that most applies. Optionally, provide more details or explanation in the "Comments". -->
* General standards
    * Explain ([`r-explain`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-explain))
        * [ ] __PASS__ : The goal/problem/solution have been adequately explained in the PR.
        * [ ] __PASS__ : The goal/problem/solution have been adequately explained with a link (JIRA, Github, Gitlab, StackExchange).
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: Please provide a better explanation of the goal/problem being addressed.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: Please provide a better explanation of how this solution works.
        * [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
    * User impact ([`r-user`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-user))
        * [ ] __PASS__: The change would be intuitive or unnoticeable for a majority of users who work with this feature.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), and the approach should be changed.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), and we need a better transition/communication plan.
        * [ ] __PASS__: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience (eg requiring retraining), but this has been addressed with a suitable transition/communication plan.
        * [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
    * Documentation ([`r-doc`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-doc))
        * [ ] __PASS__: There are relevant updates for the documentation, or the changes do not require documentation.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: The user documentation should be updated.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: The administrator documentation should be updated.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: The developer documentation should be updated.
        * [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
    * Run it ([`r-run`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-run))
        * [ ] __PASS__: <!-- describe how you ran it -->
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: <!-- describe how you ran it -->
        * [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
* Developer standards
    * Technical impact ([`r-tech`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-tech))
        * [ ] __PASS__: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream.
        * [ ] __PASS__: The change potentially affects compatibility, but the risks have been sufficiently managed.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change potentially affects compatibility, and the risks have **not** been sufficiently managed.
        * [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
    * Code quality ([`r-code`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-code))
        * [ ] __PASS__: The functionality, purpose, and style of the code seems clear+sensible.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: Something was unclear to me.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: The approach should be different.
        * [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
    * Maintainability ([`r-maint`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-maint))
        * [ ] __PASS__: The change sufficiently improves test coverage, or the change is trivial enough that it does not require tests.
        * [ ] __PASS__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage, but special circumstances make it important to accept the change anyway.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: The change does not sufficiently improve test coverage.
        * [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->
    * Test results ([`r-test`](https://docs.civicrm.org/dev/en/latest/standards/review/#r-test))
        * [ ] __PASS__: The test results are all-clear.
        * [ ] __PASS__: The test results have failures, but these have been individually inspected and found to be irrelevant.
        * [ ] __ISSUE__: The test failures need to be resolved.
        * [ ] __COMMENTS__: <!-- optional -->