EM-RSK-04 · Subject model · W2
Continuity, backup and recovery
Criticality, continuity plan, backup policy, recovery objective, exercise and recovery evidence. A successful backup does not confirm recoverability.
Queued for research
Claude: not-started; Grok: not-started.
Research note, in Russian: Entire research brief pending
Subject boundary and candidate types
- BusinessImpactAnalysis
- ContinuityPlan
- BackupPolicy
- RestoreTest
- RecoveryEvidence
Deep research questions
- How to link RTO/RPO to the business need?
- Which dependencies must recover first?
- What proves an actual recovery?
Verifiable invariants
- RTO/RPO have a scope and a verification method
- Backup and restore are distinct
- A test records versions and the result
End-to-end acceptance scenario
Recover a synthetic service chain with an unavailable dependency: backup success does not mask recovery failure.
Negative case
A green backup job means RTO and RPO are met.
Approaches to compare
- NIST CSF/AI RMF: governance and risk functions
- ODRL/PROV: authority, grounds and evidence
- GRC/IAM/BCM practice and NIST SP 800-34 for recovery
Candidates in the live catalogue
- WM-ACT-043 · Business Continuity / Recovery · 0.3.0-research.1 · installable
Semantic fit requires boundary research; a published model does not by itself complete this card.
Result requirements
Every card is executed together with the full research contract: definitions, fields and cardinalities, lifecycle, sources, data mastership, rights, the five object facets, at least eight invariants, positive and negative examples, dependencies, migration and applicability limits.