If the community membership grows and there’s more forum activity, then the moderation policy can be further improved by having a Well-being team, just as the SocialHub has too. This team should ideally have non-staff members in it, as well as staff. This way they can handle accusations against staff members together in a good and transparent fashion.
Another improvement to make is to have a system user on the forum that reports in the public feedback category about the outcome of moderation procedures. This because the decision that has been made is carried by the entire moderation team (in this case forum staff). Consensus was already reached. When reporting as a system user there’s less risk of other people holding a grudge against the reporter.
What SocialHub has for the Well-beig team that differs from here, is that the Moderation category is accessible to forum members in the highest trust levels. I think level 2 is specified for this, but it might be set higher. Advantage is that there can be more transparency, and more people giving their valued opinion and feedback. With a Well-being team in place there’s always the opportunity to handle very sensitive, delicate issues separately, because - as a Discourse group - they have a group message box as well.
Lastly Discourse offers the capability to set Policies for specific trust levels. They work such that a member MUST consent with the policy when they reach the trust level, or they’ll get reminders of the policy on every visit of the forum. So the policy could highlight the Code of Conduct and the Moderation Procedures and ask for consent on that, which is then tracked afterwards. People cannot say that they weren’t aware of the various procedures anymore.