An ontological correspondence review is how ontological fidelity becomes a practice rather than an accident. Ordinary review asks are we meeting targets? — which by design cannot detect the failure this function cares about, a form that scores well and has stopped corresponding. So alongside performance review, major institutions would periodically ask a different set of questions:
What was this form created to serve? What does it now actually serve? What are participants reporting beneath the performance metrics? Which practices continue only because they are inherited? What has become impossible to question? Where has ritual replaced function, or function replaced meaning? What would we preserve if the structure vanished tomorrow? What are people maintaining that they no longer believe in? What alternatives are emerging outside the institution?
The review draws especially on signal from beneath the metrics — what people actually report, and what they quietly no longer believe — and on success-triggered scrutiny, since the strongest forms are the ones least likely to be questioned without a deliberate occasion to do so. It never becomes a central authority over meaning (there is no monopoly over what matters); it is a discipline institutions apply to themselves. See Reviewing and Releasing Forms.