01
Standards clarity
Are the governing standards explicit, stable, and interpretable by the people expected to use them?
Method
A structured review of whether the system can carry the standard it claims to hold.
The method begins with what the system says should govern decisions, then examines whether the operating reality supports that claim.
Six dimensions
The review moves from stated rule to operating reality.
02
Criteria alignment
Do the applied criteria match the standards the organization says it uses?
03
Authority integrity
Are decision rights, review rights, and escalation paths clear enough to constrain discretion?
04
Consistency
Are similar matters handled consistently across actors, units, and decision points?
05
Documentation
Can the rationale, evidence, and decision path be traced without relying on memory or informal explanation?
06
Review legitimacy
Does the system include review conditions that make correction, challenge, or accountability possible?
Analytical sequence
Evidence comes before interpretation.
The work separates what the record shows, what can reasonably be inferred, what remains unknown, and what the governing standard requires.
- 1Name the standard
Identify the rule, criterion, threshold, or authority claim.
- 2Trace the decision path
Map roles, handoffs, evidence, exceptions, and approvals.
- 3Compare policy and practice
Test whether actual use aligns with the stated system.
- 4Test review conditions
Examine whether rationale, correction, and accountability are possible.
Output
What the work produces
- A written diagnostic of system conditions.
- A standards-and-criteria alignment analysis.
- An evidence and documentation map.
- A review of ambiguity, discretion, and governance gaps.
- A founder-reviewed report or memo appropriate to scope.
A bounded review