The level of quality assurance required is dependent on the practical use case of the map.

There are a number of different methods that can be used for validation of a the accuracy of the content of the map.

Dual/multiple user independent mapping

Dual independent mapping is often considered the "gold standard" approach for mapping and should be considered when a high quality map is required.

In this approach, each source code is independently mapped by 2 (or more) authors, and the results are then compared. When there is agreement between the authors for a mapping, then the mapping is accepted. If there is a conflict, there is a conflict resolution process between the authors to come to an agreement on the correct mapping. 

Agreement is achieved for a given source code when all targets (or no map) and their respective relationship types that have been selected are the same between the authors of the mapping.

The conflict resolution process may involve a workshop between the authors, or the use of an adjudicator/subject matter expert to make a decision.

Full review process

Reviewing is the use of human knowledge and skill to review maps.

Each and every map row is reviewed singly and individually. It is preferred that users performing the review are not involved in authoring of the map to ensure an unbiased validation, however due to resourcing constraints, this is not always possible and in these cases, it is recommended that user performing the reviews do not review their own authoring work.

Sampling review process

In this approach, a sample set is selected from the whole map. The sample set is then reviewed. Like the full review process, it is preferred that users performing the review are not involved in authoring of the map to ensure an unbiased validation, however due to resourcing constraints, this is not always possible and in these cases, it is recommended that user performing the reviews do not review their own authoring work.

If taking a sampling review approach, care should be taken in picking the set and acceptable error rate depending on the risk rating of the map. This approach may not be suitable for most maps as it does does not necessarily validate a whole map, but may be more suitable for ongoing maintenance of maps.