A way of looking.
This is how I read this topic. The related pieces show that position in practice, dated and signed.
Entries in the corpus.
The identifiable accountable party
A significant technical decision must be traceable to human roles with the authority and obligation to answer for it. When a machine is involved, traceability extends to those who defined thresholds, approved deployment and retained the ability to intervene.
What is claimed must be demonstrated, or not claimed
Actor, date, criterion, scope and validity period make it possible to reconstruct a technical claim. The absence of any one does not make the rest false; it reduces what can be concluded and requires the limitation to be stated.
Technical trust · evidence, scope and accountability
A brand does not create technical trust. Nor does a standalone certificate or an institutional statement. It is created by a chain that anyone can examine: what is claimed, against which criterion, within what scope, with what evidence, from when, until when and who answers for it.
Do you have a case that can be read through this criterion?
If this topic intersects with your work — a decision, a source, a question — write to me and tell me the context.