1. Constitutional Rule
Technical conformance is binary. An implementation is Conformant, Non-conformant or Indeterminate. Levels describe the assurance and institutional progression surrounding a claim, not percentages or degrees of conformance.
2. Levels
| Level | Name | Meaning | Claim boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Experimental | Exploratory work with no formal conformance claim. | MUST NOT claim conformance. |
| 1 | Protocol Draft | An identified implementation maps itself to a named Protocol version. | Mapping only; requirements not yet fully assessed. |
| 2 | Self-Assessed | The implementer has run the applicable test suite and published RI-DECL-001. | Self-declared; no independence implied. |
| 3 | Independent Implementation | A separately controlled implementation has been built from published material under a documented independence method. | Independence of implementation; not necessarily a conformant outcome. |
| 4 | Independent Verification | An independent evaluator has examined the conformance evidence and issued a bounded determination. | Verification of the stated claim and scope only. |
| 5 | Registry Eligible | Defined prerequisites for a future Registry submission are satisfied. | Eligibility does not create Recognition or standing. |
| 6 | Recognised | An authorised Recognition function has issued a Recognition Decision. | Recognition remains separate from Registry publication; current standing must be resolved from the Registry. |
3. Progression Rules
Progression requires evidence for every prior applicable level, but a later level does not cure a failed conformance test. Level claims MUST identify version, scope, date, authority and limitations. Registry standing is not a level: it is a current constitutional condition created and maintained by Registry publication.
4. RI-006 Boundary
This assurance model does not issue or replace the proposed RI-006 Responsibility Infrastructure Maturity Model. RI-006 remains separately reserved.