Order the stages of ethical oversight for a deceptive study, from the earliest to the last.

1. The researcher submits a protocol setting out the deception and its justification.
2. A review board weighs the scientific value against the risk to participants.
3. Participants consent to take part, without being told the study's real aim.
4. The study runs, with the right to withdraw available at any point.
5. Participants are debriefed, told the true purpose, and offered the removal of their data.

The order encodes the whole logic of how deception is made defensible. Independent review comes before any participant is approached, because a researcher committed to their own study is the wrong person to weigh its risks. Consent still happens even though it cannot be fully informed - participants agree to take part, and retain the right to stop.

Debriefing is last and is not a formality. It is where the participant finally receives what consent could not give them in advance, and where the offer to withdraw their data restores the choice the deception removed. A deceptive study without a genuine debrief has not delayed consent; it has dispensed with it.

Milgram is again the reference case, and the ordering shows what he did and did not do. He debriefed thoroughly and followed participants up for a year. What did not exist in 1961 was the second step - an independent board with the power to say no before the first participant arrived.