Describe the work before describing the contract
An annotation program can include people selecting occasional tasks, reviewers overseeing a queue, and experts building software over several months. Those roles may have different operating facts even when they use the same application.
Record how work is offered, whether it can be declined, who controls hours and methods, whether exclusivity applies, and how quality is reviewed. Explain what happens if a contributor fails to meet expectations, rather than relying on the agreement’s label.
Create a separate profile for each role
Begin with the jobs people actually perform. A contributor account is an application concept, not a legal category. The same network may include short assignments, continuing specialist projects, and people responsible for managing others. Record the operating facts for each group before choosing a contracting model.
These profiles are examples for fact gathering, not classification outcomes. Do not assume that occasional work is automatically contracting or that a long assignment is automatically employment. The assessment needs the full relationship and the applicable local requirements.
| Illustrative role | Facts to establish | Change to review |
|---|---|---|
| Task annotator | How tasks are offered, whether they can be declined, and how acceptance is decided | Required shifts, minimum availability, or a continuing obligation to accept tasks |
| Quality reviewer | How the review queue is assigned, who controls availability, and how decisions are supervised | Responsibility for managing a team or enforcing a fixed schedule |
| Domain expert | Project deliverables, technical acceptance, tools, and ongoing responsibilities | A project that becomes a continuing operational role |
| Team lead | Authority to allocate work, supervise contributors, and make operational decisions | A lead role added to a prior task-based engagement |
Apply the appropriate country framework
The US IRS organizes its federal employment-tax analysis around behavioral control, financial control, and the parties’ relationship. Other countries use their own tests and legal definitions. Do not export the US categories as a universal legal determination.
Prepare a separate assessment for each launch country: India, Ukraine, Pakistan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Romania, Turkey, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Indonesia. Use the linked country guides to organize registration and payment questions, then assess the work relationship under the current local framework. Payment availability and tax registration do not establish classification.
For each country, record the role, the person’s actual working location, the proposed contracting parties, and the facts used in the assessment. Identify any local questions still unresolved before inviting contributors. A single global contractor policy can organize the process, but it should not be presented as ten completed country determinations.
| Country | Local framework to assess |
|---|---|
| India | Indian Supreme Court decisions consider the substance of the relationship, including control and integration into the business. For an annotation program, document who decides how the work is done and how the role fits into ongoing operations; a per-task rate does not answer those questions. |
| Ukraine | Ukraine’s State Labour Service distinguishes a civil agreement for an independently produced result from an employment relationship organized around the work process. Define the output being bought and check whether the day-to-day arrangement instead places the person within your managed workforce. |
| Pakistan | Start by identifying the contributor’s province or territory and the relevant establishment. Pakistan’s devolution of labour responsibilities makes location part of the legal analysis; a single national contractor checklist is not enough. Assess the actual role under the applicable framework rather than treating freelancer banking eligibility as a classification decision. |
| Philippines | The Philippine Supreme Court uses a four-fold test covering engagement, payment, dismissal, and control, together with economic-dependence analysis in relevant cases. For AI work, examine how the platform directs the means and methods of work, not only what the contract calls the contributor. |
| Vietnam | Article 13 of Vietnam’s Labour Code treats an agreement as an employment contract when it contains paid work and management or supervision, even if the parties use another name. Review the actual operating model before describing a managed annotation role as independent services. |
| Romania | ANAF describes independent activity for tax purposes through a test requiring at least four of seven criteria, including freedom over work arrangements, multiple clients, and economic risk. This is a tax framework, not a universal employment safe harbor. Keep the factual assessment distinct from the payment calculation. |
| Turkey | Article 8 of Turkey’s Labour Act defines employment through work performed in subordination in exchange for remuneration. Review supervision and dependence in the actual role. Labeling earnings as task fees does not itself answer whether the underlying relationship is employment. |
| Georgia | Article 2 of Georgia’s Labour Code describes labour relations as paid work under organized labour conditions. Record who organizes the work and the contributor’s ongoing obligations. Business registration and a signed services agreement should not substitute for examining those facts. |
| Bulgaria | Bulgaria’s Labour Inspectorate distinguishes the provision of labour under employment from an independently achieved result under a civil agreement. Working time, workplace, discipline, and hierarchical control are relevant distinctions in its guidance. Review how the annotation role works in practice before choosing the agreement. |
| Indonesia | Indonesia’s manpower legislation defines an employment relationship by work, wages, and orders. For contributor programs, document how assignments and instructions operate, and assess those facts under the current framework. A service-agreement title or task-based calculation is not a substitute for that review. |
Check the application against the written terms
The contract and the product should describe the same working arrangement. If the agreement says a person can decline assignments, inspect what the application does when they decline. If the agreement describes self-selected availability, check whether notifications, account rules, or team practices impose a different expectation.
Review instructions, task allocation, quality checks, and account restrictions with the people who operate the program. A quality standard explains the output you are buying; a required daily workflow may raise a different set of questions. Record the actual requirements without assuming that one feature determines the outcome.
Use a sample journey to make this review concrete. Follow an invitation, the agreement, a task offer, a declined task, accepted work, and a quality dispute. Capture the relevant rule versions and the people who can change them. The aim is to give the assessment accurate facts rather than a general description of the product.
Review bonuses with the rest of the arrangement
A quality bonus, retention incentive, referral fee, and attendance-linked bonus reward different behavior. Record the trigger, calculation, approval evidence, and whether the condition changes how the person is expected to work.
Clear terms help contributors understand compensation, but they do not guarantee classification. A requirement to work fixed shifts or remain continuously available should be included in the assessment even if the base earnings are calculated per task.
Keep a record someone else can understand
A useful assessment record identifies the person or role group, working country, date, proposed arrangement, and facts considered. It should also explain who made the decision and any operating changes required before onboarding. Keep the source materials or references needed to reconstruct that decision later.
Where an assessment applies to a role group, state the boundaries. A shared outcome should not silently extend to contributors with different schedules, duties, locations, or supervision. Identify the exceptions that need their own review and give the operations team a way to flag them.
Do not turn an incomplete assessment into a positive status just to finish onboarding. Track unresolved questions separately, assign an owner, and decide what must be resolved before work starts. If the engagement changes later, preserve the earlier assessment as well as the updated one.
- Role and task-specification version
- Country where the work is actually performed
- How assignments, hours, methods, and quality are managed
- Compensation and bonus terms
- Contracting parties and agreement version
- Assessment date, decision, limitations, and follow-up actions
Reassess at the points where roles change
Set a review trigger when an occasional contributor becomes a team lead, receives a long-term assignment, changes country, or starts working under a different supervision model. The onboarding assessment should not become a permanent label.
Keep a dated record of the facts considered, the agreed structure, and any operational changes required. Where the relationship is employment, evaluate an employment arrangement instead of treating a new contract title as the solution.
An example: an annotator becomes a reviewer
Consider an illustrative contributor who initially selects occasional tasks. After several months, the team asks that person to review other contributors’ work every weekday and remain available during a fixed window. The title change is only part of the picture. The new expectations about availability, responsibility, and supervision belong in a fresh assessment.
Before the new role begins, update the role description and explain the proposed workflow. Review the applicable country requirements, compensation, and agreement against those facts. If the appropriate arrangement changes, coordinate the operational and contractual changes rather than simply adding a reviewer permission to the same account.
The example does not establish a legal result. It shows why classification review should be connected to product permissions and staffing decisions, not treated as an onboarding checkbox that never needs attention.
Scope the review before onboarding
Toku can assess classification by country and role and build relevant protections into contributor agreements. Share the real task workflow, bonus terms, and expected engagement pattern, including how the platform allocates and reviews work.
Discuss the contracting-counterparty and administration options together with the assessment. Any allocation of responsibilities or contractual protection needs to be understood in the context of the actual service terms.
Define the bonus calculation
Specify the qualifying work, measurement window, quality threshold, amount, and payment date. Explain how corrections and disputed reviews affect eligibility. Keep the applicable rule version with the accepted-work record.
Keep the base earnings and bonus separately identifiable. Finance should be able to trace the approval and explain the total without rebuilding the quality review. Reassess the arrangement when incentives or responsibilities change.
General information for teams planning contributor programs. Classification, tax, payment eligibility, and data obligations depend on the actual arrangement and applicable local requirements.