PAS Outsourcing Recording, and Outreach?

More details have emerged about the planned PAS recording outsourcing programme ('The PASt Explorers: finds recording in the local community project') for which they did their audience survey. It is typical that these details did not come from an archaeologist's questions (such as mine sent to the Scheme 18th April 2013) but on a metal detectorist's blog. This project is focused on "increasing the PAS’ capacity to record finds" and it is hoped, funding allowing, to start it in November 2014, though a pilot project with volunteers has reportedly already been running in Leicestershire:

The project aims to create community finds recording teams based around local FLOs. There will be one FLO who will act as lead FLO in a 'Regional Training Centre', covering several counties in an area, who will oversee activities. The teams will cover their local county and will help the local county FLO record finds and do other aspects of finds recording work, including outreach. The project will provide high standard training for the volunteers and we are currently developing this training programme. The idea is that the volunteer teams will eventually be able to look after themselves, guided by one person appointed as lead volunteer in the project but ultimately steered by the local and lead FLOs and also that the volunteers are equipped with new skills. As part of the project we will also be developing an online resource, the County Pages, which will be a part of the PAS website devoted to finds recording in the county by the volunteers. We will be including self-recorders and detecting club reps who wish to record their clubs finds as volunteers in the project, which means that they will also be able to access training and support in recording their finds.

The first point is that we still have no information from which groups these volunteers (community teams) will be drawn. This was my question of 18th April last year - a year ago and still not properly answered. Are these "volunteers" going to be metal detectorists, bored housewives, out of work archaeology graduates, or prisoners doing community work? The answer to this question is not insignificant.

Secondly the "outreach" on promoting best practice which the PAS was set up to do extends to more than just getting finds off people. Putting that in the hands of freshly-trained volunteers of unknown origin is not likely to encourage any useful developments there.

One of the (2003 vintage) aims of the PAS  was to facilitate contacts between finders and archaeologists. If now finders are going to be dealing with volunteer "community recorders" of uncertain origin, does that mean that aim has been abandoned in favour of boosting database numbers?

One wonders what kind of 'record' we are going to get from the 'training' of volunteers of unknown origin  if they have no previous archaeological experience and training. The records verification team at the BM have a massive backlog of unverified records from the PAS FLOs who are professional archaeologists (but still manage such curiosities as recording a "bone pin made of jet" and other such wobblies). Together with an increase in volunteer recorders are we going to see a concomitant expansion of the team of verifiers in order to maintain high standards? 

What is the point of making an information ghetto in the form of "County pages" for the work of these volunteers? Are they not going to be contributing to the database and its statistics, is that the point? Is the point that their efforts will always be somewhat suspect in comparison to the data entered by professional archaeologists? Why is the database being split up like this?