# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "published", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-02T19:34:55Z", "synthesisSha256": "c072666511eac98f17511360a7a5a8bc23b6a84285d18a36bb69843783aff594", "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "providers": [ "Claude" ], "waivedProviders": [ "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-KNW-011", "registryId": "vr.wm-knw-011", "name": "Goal / Objective", "version": "0.3.0-research.1", "previousVersions": [], "entryKind": "entity", "family": "World Models", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "INF.KNW.GOL" ], "tags": [ "goal", "objective", "inf.knw.gol" ], "status": "published" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-knw-011-goal-objective/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-knw-011", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-knw-011", "model_id": "WM-KNW-011", "name": "Goal / Objective", "entry_kind": "entity", "purpose": "Represent a desired outcome as a governable record: what end state is wanted, for whom and by when, how attainment is measured, who is accountable, on what authority it stands, and how it is refined, changed and superseded — without owning the actions that pursue it, the metrics that measure it, or the systems that evaluate it.", "scope_statement": "In scope is the declarative content of a goal or objective record and the parameters that make it operable by an agent: statement, role (overall objective vs derived target), classification, identity and codes, measure binding by reference, baseline and target value with unit and scope, time horizon and interim milestones, refinement and contribution structure, accountability and mandate, declared status and change control, provenance, definition quality and external alignments. Out of scope is anything that happens when the goal is pursued or measured: planning and execution of actions, collection or computation of indicator values, evaluation verdicts, enforcement, incentives and audit-trail keeping. Sources consistently separate objective (overall end), target (detailed derived performance requirement) and indicator (measurement expression), and assign 'how results will be evaluated' to action planning rather than to the objective itself.", "in_scope": [ "Goal statement semantics: subject of change, direction, end-state condition and achievement criteria", "Role distinction between overall objective, derived target and referenced indicator", "Identity, governed codes and canonical wording (including language variants) of the goal record", "Target parameters: baseline value, base year/period, target value, unit, absolute vs relative, tolerance and scope boundary", "Time horizon, target year or period, interim targets and milestones as declared parameters", "Refinement (AND/OR), contribution and alignment to higher-level ends", "Declared conflicts, trade-offs and priority among goals (declaration, not runtime arbitration)", "Accountability assignment: owner, lead/responsible official, contributors, approver", "Authority and mandate basis: statutory, contractual, board-approved or voluntary; binding vs aspirational", "Goal-record lifecycle status, review cadence triggers, restatement and supersession", "Provenance of the goal record, including event time versus ingestion time", "Definition quality and structural validation of the goal record", "Alignment mappings to external goal/target frameworks and declared conflicts with them", "Disclosure status and retention/disposition references for superseded goal records" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Indicator/metric definitions, computation methods and data collection procedures (measure model owns these; the goal only carries a reference and target parameters)", "Observation values, time series and progress data points used to judge attainment", "Evaluation verdicts, scoring engines, performance appraisal and any runtime attainment computation", "Planning, scheduling, resourcing and execution of the actions or programmes that pursue the goal (parent action model)", "Policy, rule and requirement enforcement, permission evaluation and compliance determination", "Risk identification, assessment and treatment records", "Decision and approval records themselves (referenced, not reproduced)", "Audit trails, records-management disposition execution and evidential retention operations", "Party/organisation and role master data", "Budget, funding and incentive/compensation mechanics", "Published reports or disclosures that contain goals (rendering artefacts of other models)" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "Indicator / measure definition model", "distinction": "EMAS defines an environmental performance indicator as 'a specific expression that allows measurement of an organisation's environmental performance', separate from objective and target; ESRS separates minimum disclosures for metrics (MDR-M) from targets (MDR-T). This model carries an indicator reference, unit and target parameters only.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "neighbor": "Measurement / observation (time series) model", "distinction": "Actual values, coverage and periodicity of measurement belong to the observation model; only baseline value, base year and target value are held here as declared parameters of the commitment.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-ACT-008 Action / Activity (parent)", "distinction": "EMAS clause 6.2.2 assigns 'what will be done, what resources will be required, who will be responsible, when it will be completed, how the results will be evaluated' to planning of actions. This model records the end state and its accountability, not the plan or its execution.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "neighbor": "Policy / rule / requirement model", "distinction": "EMAS derives objectives from the environmental policy; policy is the standing normative frame, the objective is the result sought. Obligation expression, enforcement and permission evaluation stay in the policy model.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-002" ] }, { "neighbor": "Risk model", "distinction": "Objectives are the reference point against which risk is expressed; risk registers, likelihood/impact assessment and treatment plans are not modelled here, only referenced.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-002" ] }, { "neighbor": "Decision / approval model", "distinction": "The act of approving, adopting or withdrawing a goal is a decision record owned elsewhere; this model stores the approval reference, the resulting authority basis and the effective period.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004" ] }, { "neighbor": "Agent task/request model (e.g. ROS 2 action goals)", "distinction": "An execution goal is a request with a server-side state machine (ACCEPTED, EXECUTING, CANCELING, SUCCEEDED, ABORTED, CANCELED) owned by the executing system. That state machine is not imported; this model keeps only the standing goal record's declared status.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-009" ] }, { "neighbor": "Reporting / disclosure document model", "distinction": "ESRS target disclosures are rendered inside a sustainability statement; the statement, its structure and its assurance are a reporting artefact, while the target definition itself is the governed record here.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005" ] }, { "neighbor": "Records management / retention model", "distinction": "This model declares retention class, tombstone and supersession references; physical disposition and its evidence are executed under the adopting Dimension's records policy.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "31 U.S.C. 1115 — Federal Government and agency performance plans", "organization": "Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (via GovInfo)", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title31/html/USCODE-2023-title31-subtitleII-chap11-sec1115.htm", "version_or_date": "2023 edition of the United States Code (GPRA Modernization Act codification)", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:12:00Z", "relevance": "Statutory definitions of performance goal ('a target level of performance expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which actual achievement can be compared'), performance indicator, milestone, outcome measure and output measure, plus the requirement to name a lead official and quarterly targets." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1505 amending Annexes I, II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 (EMAS)", "organization": "European Commission / EUR-Lex", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32017R1505", "version_or_date": "28 August 2017", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:41:00Z", "relevance": "Annex II clause A.6.2 states objectives shall be consistent with policy, measurable if practicable, monitored, communicated and updated as appropriate, and that planning to achieve them determines what will be done, resources, responsibility, completion time and how results will be evaluated including indicators — the normative split between objective and action plan." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)", "organization": "European Parliament and Council / EUR-Lex", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32009R1221", "version_or_date": "25 November 2009 (consolidated text as published on EUR-Lex)", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:33:00Z", "relevance": "Article 2 legally distinguishes 'environmental objective' (overall goal arising from policy, quantified where practicable), 'environmental target' (detailed performance requirement arising from objectives) and 'environmental performance indicator' (expression allowing measurement)." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "ESRS 2 General Disclosures — Minimum Disclosure Requirement Targets (MDR-T), paragraphs 78-81", "organization": "EFRAG (European Financial Reporting Advisory Group) Knowledge Hub", "url": "https://knowledgehub.efrag.org/eng/interactive/esrs-set-1/esrs-2-general-disclosures/2025-11-10-quick-fix", "version_or_date": "ESRS Set 1, consolidated rendering including the 2025-11-10 quick fix", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:35:00Z", "relevance": "Enumerates the required attributes of a target: measurable, outcome-oriented and time-bound; relation to policy objectives; target level absolute or relative with unit; scope; baseline value and base year; target period and interim milestones; methodologies and significant assumptions; stakeholder involvement; changes to targets and methodologies; performance against targets; and the fallback when no measurable target is set." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU as regards sustainability reporting standards", "organization": "European Commission / EUR-Lex", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/2772/2025-01-01/eng", "version_or_date": "Adopted 31 July 2023; consolidated version applicable from 1 January 2025", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:27:00Z", "relevance": "Legal instrument enacting ESRS Set 1, including ESRS 1 general requirements and the cross-cutting minimum disclosure requirements for metrics and targets referenced by ESRS 2; establishes that targets are reported against material impacts, risks and opportunities." }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "SDG Indicators — Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda", "organization": "United Nations Statistics Division / Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators", "url": "https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/", "version_or_date": "Framework after the 2026 refinement (E/CN.3/2026/12, Annex I; 57th session of the UN Statistical Commission, March 2026)", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:10:00Z", "relevance": "Canonical example of a governed goal hierarchy with stable hierarchical codes (goal N, target N.M, indicator N.M.K), time-bounded target wording, custodian agencies, annual refinement and periodic comprehensive review — evidence for goal identity, code-list versioning and horizon encoding." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "iStar 2.0 Language Guide", "organization": "Dalpiaz, Franch and Horkoff (arXiv:1605.07767)", "url": "https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1605.07767", "version_or_date": "arXiv preprint, 2016 (v4)", "source_type": "scientific", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 3, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:34:00Z", "relevance": "Defines a goal as 'a state of affairs that the actor wants to achieve and that has clear-cut criteria of achievement', distinguishes Quality (desired level of achievement without clear-cut criteria), and specifies AND/OR refinement, qualification and contribution links (make/help/hurt/break) and dependencies." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "PROV-O: The PROV Ontology", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/", "version_or_date": "W3C Recommendation, 30 April 2013", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:32:00Z", "relevance": "Provides the alignment vocabulary for goal-record provenance: Entity, Activity, Agent, wasGeneratedBy, wasDerivedFrom, wasAttributedTo and the qualified-influence pattern for recording roles and times." }, { "id": "SRC-009", "title": "ROS 2 Design — Actions", "organization": "ROS 2 project (design.ros2.org)", "url": "https://design.ros2.org/articles/actions.html", "version_or_date": "ROS 2 design article, current revision as published", "source_type": "first-party-doc", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 3, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:31:00Z", "relevance": "Counterexample source: an execution goal carries a client-generated UUID and a server-owned state machine (ACCEPTED, EXECUTING, CANCELING, SUCCEEDED, ABORTED, CANCELED); used to justify excluding execution lifecycle from the standing goal record while supporting UUID-based identity fallback." }, { "id": "SRC-010", "title": "What is a management system?", "organization": "International Organization for Standardization (ISO)", "url": "https://committee.iso.org/management-system-standards.html", "version_or_date": "ISO committee site, accessed September 2026", "source_type": "first-party-doc", "primary_source": false, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-09-02T09:44:00Z", "relevance": "ISO's own statement that a management system is 'the way in which an organization manages the interrelated parts of its business in order to achieve its objectives', and that management system standards share a harmonized structure and terminology (Annex SL) so that objectives are handled consistently across domains." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "bn-goal-semantics-and-identity", "name": "Goal semantics and identity", "description": "What the record asserts, which role it plays in an objective hierarchy, how it is typed, identified and worded.", "rationale": "Legal instruments disagree on the words 'objective', 'target' and 'goal' while agreeing on the underlying roles; identity and role must be fixed before measures, plans or accountability can attach without ambiguity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-010" ], "layers": [ { "id": "ly-goal-definition-and-typing", "name": "Definition and typing", "description": "The atomic desired-outcome statement, its achievement criteria, and the classification that positions it among objectives, targets and indicators.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-007", "SRC-001", "SRC-010" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-goal-statement-core", "name": "Desired-outcome statement", "description": "The end state the goal requires — subject, direction of change and condition of satisfaction — expressed independently of the means used to reach it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-003", "SRC-002" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-outcome-end-state", "text": "What end state or condition does this goal require, stated without reference to the actions that would produce it?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "Outcome statement text", "Subject of change (population, asset, system or process)", "Direction of change code (increase, decrease, maintain, eliminate, establish)" ] }, { "id": "q-achievement-criteria", "text": "What clear-cut criteria distinguish 'achieved' from 'progressed but not achieved'?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "Achievement criterion expression", "Attainment mode (binary, graded, sustained)", "Sustainment period if the state must be maintained" ] }, { "id": "q-quantification-practicable", "text": "Is quantification of this outcome practicable, and if not, on what justification is it left qualitative?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "Quantification-practicable flag", "Justification text where quantification is not practicable", "Qualitative ambition level" ] }, { "id": "q-statement-ambiguity", "text": "Which terms in the wording are vague or contested and must be defined before the goal is operable?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "List of terms requiring definition", "Glossary or term-definition references", "Open-interpretation notes" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-goal-statement-text", "name": "Goal statement text", "description": "Canonical normative wording of the desired outcome.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-change-direction-code", "name": "Direction of change code", "description": "Coded direction of the intended change in the subject's state.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-achievement-criterion", "name": "Achievement criterion", "description": "Expression of the condition under which the goal counts as achieved.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "de-quantification-practicable", "name": "Quantification practicable flag", "description": "Whether quantification of the objective is practicable, per EMAS 'quantified where practicable'.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-002" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "The statement and its achievement criteria are typed fields on the canonical goal record; extracting them into a separate document would split the normative wording from its identity and invite divergent copies." }, { "id": "fd-objective-target-indicator-roles", "name": "Objective, target and indicator roles", "description": "Rules that place a record as an overall objective, a derived detailed target, or neither — the indicator being a measurement expression owned by another model.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-001", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-record-role", "text": "Does this record express an overall objective, a derived performance target, or a restatement of an indicator?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "Record role code (objective, target, aspiration)", "Rule applied to assign the role", "Naming regime under which the role term is used" ] }, { "id": "q-target-derivation", "text": "Which objective does this target detail, and could that objective stand without this target?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "Parent objective reference", "Necessity flag (target required to meet the objective)", "Coverage share or contribution note" ] }, { "id": "q-indicator-ownership", "text": "Which indicator expresses progress here, and which model owns that indicator's definition and computation?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "Indicator reference", "Owning model or register identifier", "Unit of measure reference" ] }, { "id": "q-target-outcome-divergence", "text": "What is recorded if every target is met but the intended outcome does not materialise?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "Divergence note", "Review trigger reference", "Successor objective reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-record-role-code", "name": "Record role code", "description": "Whether the record is an overall objective, a derived target, or an aspiration without a target.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-parent-objective-ref", "name": "Parent objective reference", "description": "Reference to the objective that this target details.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "de-naming-regime", "name": "Naming regime", "description": "The external regime whose vocabulary is used (EMAS, GPRAMA, ESRS, SDG) so that 'target' is read correctly.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "This finding is a set of role codes and reference pointers resolved against other records; it produces no standalone deliverable and must remain queryable inline for disambiguation at read time." }, { "id": "fd-goal-classification", "name": "Goal classification scheme", "description": "Controlled vocabularies typing the goal by level, result type, obligation status and measurability so agents can select comparable goals.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-goal-level", "text": "At which level does this goal sit: strategic, tactical or operational?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "Level code", "Cascade tier reference", "Planning cycle it belongs to" ] }, { "id": "q-result-type", "text": "Does the goal express an outcome, an output, or an activity level of result?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "Result-type code (outcome, output, input, process)", "Rationale referencing outcome/output measure definitions" ] }, { "id": "q-obligation-status", "text": "Is the goal mandated by law or contract, or is it voluntarily adopted?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "Obligation status code (mandatory, voluntary, conditional)", "Mandating instrument reference" ] }, { "id": "q-code-list-governance", "text": "Which version of each classification code list applied when this goal was classified?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "Code list identifier and version", "Effective date of the code list version", "Deprecation or successor code note" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-goal-level-code", "name": "Goal level code", "description": "Strategic, tactical or operational placement of the goal.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "de-result-type-code", "name": "Result type code", "description": "Whether the goal is expressed as an outcome, output or process result.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-obligation-status-code", "name": "Obligation status code", "description": "Mandated or voluntary status of the goal.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-classification-scheme-version", "name": "Classification scheme version", "description": "Version identifier of the code list used for each assigned code.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-goal-type-code-list", "name": "Goal type code list", "description": "Versioned controlled vocabulary of goal level, result type, obligation status and expression mode codes with definitions and deprecation history.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured code list (format-neutral: tabular, RDF/SKOS or record set)", "Human-readable vocabulary documentation" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative master-system identifier of the owning vocabulary register; otherwise a governed IRI under the adopting Dimension namespace; otherwise a UUIDv7/ULID minted at publication. Version is a separate attribute, never part of the identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-010" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "ly-goal-identity-and-naming", "name": "Identity and naming", "description": "How a goal record is identified across systems and how its official wording is carried and localised.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-009", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-goal-identity", "name": "Goal identity and governed codes", "description": "The identifier set that makes a goal citable: authoritative register identifier, governed external codes and a locally minted fallback.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-009", "SRC-001" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-authoritative-identifier", "text": "Which system is the master for this goal, and what identifier does it issue?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "Master system identifier", "Master system name and register reference", "Issuance date-time of the identifier" ] }, { "id": "q-governed-external-code", "text": "Does the goal carry a governed external code such as an SDG target code or a statutory reference?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "External code value", "Code scheme identifier and version", "Scheme custodian" ] }, { "id": "q-local-identifier-fallback", "text": "When no master identifier exists, what locally minted identifier is used and who mints it?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "UUIDv7 or ULID value", "Minting authority within the adopting Dimension", "Namespace under which it is resolvable" ] }, { "id": "q-identifier-stability", "text": "What changes to the goal force a new identifier rather than a new version of the same record?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "Re-identification rule", "Examples of identity-breaking changes", "Supersession link to the retired identifier" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-goal-master-identifier", "name": "Master system identifier", "description": "Identifier issued by the authoritative register that owns the goal.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-goal-external-code", "name": "Governed external code", "description": "Code assigned by an external governed scheme, such as an SDG target code.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-goal-local-identifier", "name": "Locally minted identifier", "description": "UUIDv7 or ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension where no authoritative identifier exists.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-009" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-goal-register-entry", "name": "Goal register entry", "description": "The canonical record of one goal, carrying its identifiers, statement, role, classification and links to all other findings' data.", "media_or_form": [ "Canonical record in the owning register (format-neutral)", "Exportable record set for exchange" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identity of the entry is the goal identity: authoritative master-system identifier first, then governed external code or IRI, then locally minted UUIDv7/ULID. Entries are never identified by creation date or by their position in an export.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-001" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "fd-goal-wording-and-language", "name": "Official wording and language variants", "description": "Control of the authoritative wording, translations and short labels, and of changes to wording that do not change the goal's substance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-005", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-authoritative-language", "text": "Which language version of the wording is authoritative, and which are translations?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "Authoritative language tag", "Translation language tags with translator attribution", "Equivalence assertion status" ] }, { "id": "q-label-vs-statement", "text": "What short label may be used in listings without misrepresenting the full statement?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "Short label text", "Label-to-statement equivalence note", "Display context constraints" ] }, { "id": "q-wording-change-substance", "text": "Was a wording change editorial, or did it alter the substance of the commitment?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "Change class (editorial, substantive)", "Diff reference", "Re-approval requirement flag" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-statement-language-tag", "name": "Statement language tag", "description": "BCP 47 language tag of each wording variant, with the authoritative variant marked.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1..n", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-goal-short-label", "name": "Short label", "description": "Abbreviated display label for the goal.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-wording-change-class", "name": "Wording change class", "description": "Classification of a wording change as editorial or substantive.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Wording variants are attributes of the canonical statement rather than deliverables; keeping them inline preserves a single authoritative text with its translations under one identity." } ] } ] }, { "id": "bn-target-specification-and-horizon", "name": "Target specification, measure binding and horizon", "description": "The parameters that make a goal testable: what is measured, from what baseline, to what value, over what scope and by when.", "rationale": "ESRS requires measurable, outcome-oriented, time-bound targets with baseline value, base year, unit, scope and methodology; EMAS requires objectives to be measurable if practicable; GPRAMA requires a target level of performance against which achievement can be compared.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-003" ], "layers": [ { "id": "ly-quantification-and-baseline", "name": "Quantification and baseline", "description": "Binding of the goal to a measure and to baseline and target values with their units and methodological assumptions.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-003", "SRC-001" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-measure-binding", "name": "Measure binding by reference", "description": "The reference from the goal to one or more indicator or metric definitions, with the parameters this goal contributes and nothing of the measure's own definition.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-bound-measure-reference", "text": "Which measure definitions is this goal bound to, and at what version of each?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "Measure definition reference", "Measure version or effective date", "Binding role (primary, supporting)" ] }, { "id": "q-measure-parameterisation", "text": "Which parameters of the measure does the goal fix (disaggregation, population, unit) without redefining the measure?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "Fixed parameter set", "Disaggregation dimensions selected", "Unit and unit system reference" ] }, { "id": "q-measure-absence", "text": "If no measure is available, what qualitative evaluation basis is declared instead?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "Qualitative progress criteria", "Ambition level statement", "Base period for qualitative comparison" ] }, { "id": "q-measure-substitution", "text": "What happens to the goal when the bound measure's definition changes or is retired?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "Successor measure reference", "Comparability note", "Restatement requirement flag" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-measure-reference", "name": "Measure definition reference", "description": "Pointer to the indicator or metric definition used to judge progress, owned by the measure model.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-measure-unit", "name": "Unit of measure", "description": "Unit in which the target and baseline values are expressed.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-qualitative-progress-basis", "name": "Qualitative progress basis", "description": "Declared qualitative criteria used where no measurable target is set.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Measure binding is pure reference data: the indicator definition, computation method and data collection belong to the measure model, and duplicating them here would create a second, divergent definition." }, { "id": "fd-target-value-and-baseline", "name": "Target value, baseline and base period", "description": "The quantified commitment: baseline value and base year, target value with unit, absolute or relative form, tolerance and threshold direction.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-baseline-anchor", "text": "What baseline value and base year anchor the measurement of progress, and were they defined or inherited?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "Baseline value", "Base year or base period", "Baseline source and whether it was self-defined or externally set" ] }, { "id": "q-target-value-form", "text": "What target value is to be achieved, and is it absolute or relative to the baseline?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "Target value", "Absolute or relative flag", "Unit and, for relative targets, the denominator" ] }, { "id": "q-threshold-direction", "text": "Is achievement defined as at least, at most, or within a band around the target value?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "Comparison operator", "Tolerance band or acceptable deviation", "Treatment of overachievement" ] }, { "id": "q-baseline-restatement-rule", "text": "Under what conditions may the baseline be restated, and what must be preserved when it is?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "Restatement conditions", "Prior baseline retention requirement", "Comparability disclosure obligation" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-baseline-value", "name": "Baseline value", "description": "Value from which progress is measured.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-base-period", "name": "Base year or base period", "description": "Calendar year or period to which the baseline value refers, expressed as a period code, not as an identifier.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-target-value", "name": "Target value", "description": "Value or level to be achieved.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-target-relativity", "name": "Absolute or relative flag", "description": "Whether the target is expressed in absolute terms or relative to the baseline or another denominator.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-comparison-operator", "name": "Achievement comparison operator", "description": "Operator defining satisfaction against the target value (at least, at most, equal, within band).", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-target-specification-sheet", "name": "Target specification sheet", "description": "Consolidated statement of one target's baseline, base period, target value, unit, form, tolerance and scope, sufficient for an independent party to test attainment.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured specification record", "Tabular disclosure extract" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Derived from the owning goal identity plus a target discriminator issued by the master register; falls back to a Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID. Base year is never used as the identifier.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "fd-target-methodology-and-assumptions", "name": "Methodology, scenario and assumptions", "description": "The significant assumptions, scenarios, data sources and evidence basis on which the target value was set, disclosed so the target can be challenged.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-target-setting-methodology", "text": "What methodology and significant assumptions were used to derive the target value?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "Methodology description", "Significant assumptions list", "Data sources relied upon" ] }, { "id": "q-scenario-basis", "text": "Which scenario or projection underlies the target, and over what horizon does it hold?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "Scenario identifier and provider", "Scenario horizon", "Sensitivity notes" ] }, { "id": "q-scientific-basis", "text": "Does the target rest on conclusive scientific evidence, and how is that claim substantiated?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "Scientific-basis flag", "Reference to the evidence or framework", "Third-party validation reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-target-methodology", "name": "Target-setting methodology", "description": "Narrative of how the target value was derived.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-significant-assumptions", "name": "Significant assumptions", "description": "Assumptions whose failure would invalidate the target.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-scientific-basis-flag", "name": "Scientific basis flag", "description": "Whether the target is based on conclusive scientific evidence.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-target-methodology-statement", "name": "Target methodology statement", "description": "Documented derivation of the target: method, scenario, data sources, assumptions and their sensitivity.", "media_or_form": [ "Narrative document", "Structured assumption register extract" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Master-register document identifier where one exists; otherwise a governed IRI derived from the goal identity; otherwise a Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID, with revision recorded as an attribute.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "ly-horizon-and-milestones", "name": "Horizon and milestones", "description": "The temporal commitment of the goal and its declared interim points.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-001" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-time-horizon", "name": "Target horizon and effective period", "description": "The period the goal applies to and the point by which the target value must hold, distinguished from record-keeping times.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-001" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-target-year", "text": "By what target year or period must the target value be reached, and is it a point or a sustained period?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "Target year or period code", "Point-in-time versus sustained-period flag", "Measurement cut-off convention" ] }, { "id": "q-effective-window", "text": "From when is the goal in force, and when does it cease to apply irrespective of attainment?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "Effective-from timestamp", "Effective-to or expiry timestamp", "Rolling or fixed horizon flag" ] }, { "id": "q-calendar-convention", "text": "Which calendar or fiscal-year convention governs the base and target periods?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "Calendar or fiscal year convention", "Period end date", "Time zone or offset used for cut-offs" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-target-period", "name": "Target year or period", "description": "The year or period by which the target is to be achieved.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-effective-from", "name": "Effective-from", "description": "RFC 3339 date-time from which the goal is in force.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-effective-to", "name": "Effective-to", "description": "RFC 3339 date-time at which the goal ceases to apply.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-period-convention", "name": "Period convention", "description": "Calendar or fiscal convention governing base and target periods.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Horizon data are a small set of typed temporal fields on the goal record; expressing them as an artifact would obscure the distinction between commitment time and record time that queries depend on." }, { "id": "fd-interim-milestones", "name": "Interim targets and milestones", "description": "Declared intermediate values or scheduled checkpoints between baseline and target, held as commitments rather than as schedule execution.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-interim-values", "text": "What interim target values or milestone conditions are committed, and at which dates?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "Ordered interim value list with dates", "Milestone description per checkpoint", "Cumulative or period-specific flag" ] }, { "id": "q-milestone-significance", "text": "Which milestones signify completion of a major deliverable rather than a measured value?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "Milestone type code", "Associated deliverable reference", "Owning plan reference" ] }, { "id": "q-missed-milestone-handling", "text": "What is declared to happen if an interim target is missed?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "Escalation or review trigger", "Recovery expectation statement", "Effect on the final target" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-interim-target-value", "name": "Interim target value", "description": "Committed value at an intermediate point.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-milestone-date", "name": "Milestone date", "description": "Date or period at which the interim commitment applies.", "value_kind": "date", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-milestone-type", "name": "Milestone type", "description": "Whether the milestone is a measured interim value or a scheduled deliverable event.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-milestone-schedule", "name": "Interim target and milestone schedule", "description": "Ordered set of interim commitments with dates, values or conditions, and their relation to the final target.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured schedule record", "Tabular milestone listing" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the owning goal identity plus a milestone sequence key issued by the master register; Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID as fallback. Dates order the entries but never identify them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "ly-scope-and-conditions", "name": "Scope and boundary conditions", "description": "What the goal covers and excludes, and the external conditions assumed to hold.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-target-scope-boundary", "name": "Scope, exclusions and external conditions", "description": "Organisational, geographic, value-chain or population coverage of the goal, its stated exclusions, and the external dependencies assumed when it was set.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006", "SRC-002" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-coverage-scope", "text": "Which entities, activities, value-chain stages or populations does the goal cover?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "Organisational scope references", "Activity or value-chain coverage", "Population or asset class covered" ] }, { "id": "q-geographic-scope", "text": "To which geographies or jurisdictions does the goal apply?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "Geographic scope codes", "Jurisdiction references", "Site or facility references" ] }, { "id": "q-declared-exclusions", "text": "What is deliberately excluded from the scope, and on what stated ground?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "Exclusion list", "Justification per exclusion", "Planned inclusion date if temporary" ] }, { "id": "q-external-conditions", "text": "Which external conditions or third-party dependencies are assumed to hold for the goal to remain achievable?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "Assumed external conditions", "Dependent party references", "Invalidation trigger" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-scope-coverage", "name": "Coverage scope", "description": "Entities, activities and value-chain stages covered by the goal.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-geographic-scope", "name": "Geographic scope", "description": "Geographies or jurisdictions to which the goal applies.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-scope-exclusion", "name": "Declared exclusion", "description": "Explicitly excluded entity, activity or population with justification.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-external-condition", "name": "External condition assumed", "description": "Condition outside the goal owner's control assumed to hold.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Scope is a set of typed references and coded facets evaluated on every read of the goal; as a separate document it could not be reliably intersected with organisational or geographic queries." } ] } ] }, { "id": "bn-goal-structure-and-relations", "name": "Goal structure and relations", "description": "How goals compose into hierarchies, how they relate to means, drivers and constraints, and how conflicts between them are declared.", "rationale": "iStar 2.0 provides AND/OR refinement and contribution semantics; the SDG framework and EMAS both cascade overall ends into detailed targets; conflicts between goals must be declared rather than silently resolved by agents.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-006", "SRC-003", "SRC-002" ], "layers": [ { "id": "ly-refinement-and-contribution", "name": "Refinement and contribution", "description": "Decomposition of goals into sub-goals and the qualitative contribution links between them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-goal-refinement", "name": "Goal refinement structure", "description": "AND/OR refinement of a goal into sub-goals or targets, with the satisfaction rule that follows from the refinement type.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-006", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-refinement-type", "text": "Is this refinement conjunctive, so that all children are required, or disjunctive, so that any child suffices?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "Refinement type (AND, OR)", "Child element references", "Satisfaction rule implied" ] }, { "id": "q-refinement-completeness", "text": "Do the declared children fully account for the parent, or is there an unallocated remainder?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "Coverage assessment", "Unallocated remainder description", "Coverage share per child where quantified" ] }, { "id": "q-refinement-cycles", "text": "How are cycles and cross-level shortcuts in the refinement graph detected and prevented?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "Acyclicity rule", "Maximum depth or level convention", "Detected violation references" ] }, { "id": "q-contribution-strength", "text": "Where a goal contributes to another without refining it, is the contribution positive or negative and how strong?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "Contribution link type (make, help, hurt, break)", "Target element reference", "Justification note" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-refinement-type", "name": "Refinement type", "description": "AND or OR refinement of the parent goal.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "de-child-goal-ref", "name": "Child goal reference", "description": "Reference to a sub-goal or derived target in the refinement.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-contribution-link", "name": "Contribution link", "description": "Typed positive or negative contribution to another goal or quality.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-goal-refinement-map", "name": "Goal refinement map", "description": "Graph of refinement and contribution links across a goal set, with refinement types and detected structural violations.", "media_or_form": [ "Graph structure (nodes and typed edges), format-neutral", "Rendered hierarchy view" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the root goal identity plus the map scope key from the master register; Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID where no register key exists. Snapshots carry a version attribute, not a dated identifier.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-006" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "fd-higher-level-alignment", "name": "Alignment to higher-level ends", "description": "Links from the goal upward to strategic ends, mandates or external frameworks it is intended to serve, without asserting equivalence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-004", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-upward-alignment", "text": "Which higher-level end, strategy or framework goal does this goal serve, and how directly?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "Higher-level end reference", "Alignment strength (direct, partial, indirect)", "Alignment rationale" ] }, { "id": "q-alignment-claim-basis", "text": "Is the alignment self-declared or recognised by the owner of the higher-level end?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "Claim basis (self-declared, recognised, certified)", "Recognising body reference", "Recognition evidence reference" ] }, { "id": "q-policy-consistency", "text": "How is consistency with the governing policy of the organisation demonstrated?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "Governing policy reference", "Consistency assessment note", "Inconsistency flags raised" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-higher-end-ref", "name": "Higher-level end reference", "description": "Reference to the strategy, mandate or framework goal served.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-alignment-strength", "name": "Alignment strength", "description": "How directly the goal serves the higher-level end.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-governing-policy-ref", "name": "Governing policy reference", "description": "Policy from which the objective is required to be derived and with which it must be consistent.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Alignment is a set of outgoing references with a claim basis; the referenced ends are owned by other registers, so materialising a document here would duplicate content this model must not own." } ] }, { "id": "ly-external-linkage", "name": "Linkage to means, drivers and constraints", "description": "Reference-only links from the goal to the actions that pursue it and to the drivers, constraints and risks that surround it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-010" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-means-and-action-linkage", "name": "Means and action linkage", "description": "Links to the plans, programmes or actions intended to achieve the goal, held as references while planning and execution stay with the action model.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-pursuing-actions", "text": "Which actions, programmes or courses of action are declared as means for this goal?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "Action or programme references", "Declared contribution of each means", "Owning plan register" ] }, { "id": "q-resource-and-responsibility-location", "text": "Where are the resources, responsibilities and completion dates for those means recorded?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "Owning model or system reference", "Plan record identifier", "Pointer to responsible role in that plan" ] }, { "id": "q-goal-without-means", "text": "Is the goal currently without any declared means, and is that intentional?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "Unsupported-goal flag", "Reason (aspirational, pending planning)", "Review date reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-means-reference", "name": "Means reference", "description": "Reference to an action, programme or course of action pursuing the goal.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "de-unsupported-goal-flag", "name": "Unsupported goal flag", "description": "Indicates no means are currently linked to the goal.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "EMAS assigns what will be done, resources, responsibility, timing and evaluation to action planning; this finding therefore carries only outgoing references and must not materialise a plan-like artifact." }, { "id": "fd-driver-constraint-and-risk-linkage", "name": "Drivers, constraints and risk linkage", "description": "References to the drivers or assessments that motivated the goal, the constraints that bound it, and the risks expressed against it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-004", "SRC-002" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-motivating-driver", "text": "What driver, assessment or material matter motivated the setting of this goal?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "Driver or material matter reference", "Assessment reference", "Materiality determination reference" ] }, { "id": "q-binding-constraints", "text": "Which constraints, legal limits or standing requirements bound the goal's permissible values?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "Constraint references", "Binding limit values", "Owning policy or requirement model" ] }, { "id": "q-risk-reference", "text": "Which risks are registered against the achievement of this goal, and where are they assessed?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "Risk record references", "Owning risk register", "Risk-to-goal relation type" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-driver-reference", "name": "Driver or material matter reference", "description": "Reference to the concern, impact, risk or opportunity that motivated the goal.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-constraint-reference", "name": "Constraint reference", "description": "Reference to a legal limit, policy or requirement bounding the goal.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "de-risk-reference", "name": "Risk reference", "description": "Reference to a risk registered against achievement of the goal.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Drivers, constraints and risks are governed in their own registers; this finding is a typed reference set and must not reproduce risk assessment or requirement content." } ] }, { "id": "ly-conflict-and-priority", "name": "Conflict, trade-off and priority", "description": "Declared tensions between goals and the priority guidance to be applied by decision-makers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-goal-conflict-and-priority", "name": "Conflict and priority declaration", "description": "Explicit statement of which goals compete, how they trade off, and what relative priority or weight has been declared by the authority that set them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-conflicting-goals", "text": "Which other goals does this goal compete with for the same resources or outcomes?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "Conflicting goal references", "Nature of the conflict (resource, outcome, timing)", "Evidence of the conflict" ] }, { "id": "q-declared-priority", "text": "What relative priority, weight or rank has the setting authority declared among competing goals?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "Priority rank or weight", "Declaring authority reference", "Scope in which the priority holds" ] }, { "id": "q-tradeoff-guidance", "text": "What guidance is declared for resolving the trade-off, and who is entitled to apply it?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "Trade-off guidance text", "Entitled decision role", "Escalation path reference" ] }, { "id": "q-unresolved-conflict", "text": "Which conflicts remain unresolved and must be surfaced rather than silently arbitrated?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "Unresolved conflict list", "Surfacing requirement", "Review or escalation trigger" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-conflicting-goal-ref", "name": "Conflicting goal reference", "description": "Reference to a goal in tension with this one.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "de-priority-weight", "name": "Declared priority or weight", "description": "Rank or weight declared by the setting authority.", "value_kind": "number", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-tradeoff-guidance", "name": "Trade-off guidance", "description": "Declared guidance for resolving competition between goals.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-conflict-status", "name": "Conflict resolution status", "description": "Whether the declared conflict is resolved, accepted or open.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-priority-and-tradeoff-declaration", "name": "Priority and trade-off declaration", "description": "Authority-issued statement of relative priority among a set of goals and the guidance for handling their trade-offs.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured declaration record", "Signed or approved statement document" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identifier issued by the register of the declaring authority; otherwise a governed IRI under the Dimension namespace; otherwise a Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID. Approval date is an attribute, never the identifier.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "bn-accountability-and-authority", "name": "Accountability and authority", "description": "Who owns the goal, who is answerable for it, and what makes it a legitimate commitment.", "rationale": "GPRAMA requires a named lead official for each goal and EMAS requires responsibility to be determined in planning; ESRS requires disclosure of the target's relation to policy objectives and of stakeholder involvement in setting it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-004" ], "layers": [ { "id": "ly-ownership-and-roles", "name": "Ownership and roles", "description": "Assignment of accountable and contributing parties for the goal record and its commitment.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-accountable-owner", "name": "Accountability assignment", "description": "The named party accountable for the goal, the roles that contribute, and the party responsible for the correctness of the record itself.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-accountable-party", "text": "Which single party is answerable for whether this goal is met?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "Accountable party reference", "Role or office title", "Appointment reference" ] }, { "id": "q-contributing-parties", "text": "Which organisations, units or agents contribute to the goal without being accountable for it?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "Contributor references", "Contribution description", "Coordination arrangement reference" ] }, { "id": "q-record-steward", "text": "Who is responsible for maintaining the accuracy of the goal record as distinct from achieving the goal?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "Record steward reference", "Stewardship scope", "Escalation contact" ] }, { "id": "q-accountability-transfer", "text": "How is accountability transferred when the accountable party changes or ceases to exist?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "Transfer rule", "Predecessor and successor references", "Effective date-time of transfer" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-accountable-party", "name": "Accountable party reference", "description": "Reference to the party answerable for achievement of the goal.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-contributor-party", "name": "Contributing party reference", "description": "Reference to a contributing organisation, unit or agent.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-record-steward", "name": "Record steward reference", "description": "Party responsible for the accuracy and upkeep of the goal record.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-accountability-assignment", "name": "Accountability assignment record", "description": "Record naming the accountable party, contributors and record steward for a goal, with effective dates and the appointing authority.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured assignment record", "Approved assignment memorandum" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identifier from the authoritative HR or governance register that appoints the role holder; otherwise a governed IRI derived from goal identity and role code; otherwise a Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "ly-mandate-and-legitimacy", "name": "Mandate and legitimacy", "description": "The authority basis that makes the goal binding or voluntary, and the involvement of stakeholders in setting it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005", "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-authority-and-mandate-basis", "name": "Authority, mandate and stakeholder involvement", "description": "What instrument or decision established the goal, how binding it is, and whether affected stakeholders were involved in setting the target.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-mandating-instrument", "text": "Which legal instrument, decision or commitment established this goal?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "Instrument or decision reference", "Issuing authority", "Instrument date and citation" ] }, { "id": "q-binding-force", "text": "Is the goal legally binding, contractually binding, board-approved or aspirational?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "Binding force code", "Consequence of non-attainment as declared", "Jurisdiction where binding" ] }, { "id": "q-stakeholder-involvement", "text": "Were affected stakeholders involved in setting the target, and how was their input handled?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "Stakeholder groups involved", "Involvement method", "Effect of the input on the target" ] }, { "id": "q-approval-record", "text": "Where is the approval or adoption decision recorded, and by whom was it taken?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "Approval record reference in the decision register", "Approving role", "Approval date-time in RFC 3339" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-mandate-reference", "name": "Mandating instrument reference", "description": "Citation of the instrument or decision establishing the goal.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-binding-force-code", "name": "Binding force code", "description": "Degree to which the goal is binding on its owner.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-stakeholder-involvement-note", "name": "Stakeholder involvement note", "description": "Description of stakeholder involvement in target setting.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-approval-decision-ref", "name": "Approval decision reference", "description": "Pointer to the decision record approving or adopting the goal.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "The approval act and the mandating instrument are records owned by the decision and legislative registers; this finding carries citations and a binding-force code so that authority can be checked without copying those records." } ] } ] }, { "id": "bn-lifecycle-provenance-and-change", "name": "Lifecycle, provenance and change control", "description": "How a goal record moves through its declared states, how it is versioned and restated, and how its origin is recorded.", "rationale": "EMAS requires objectives to be monitored and updated as appropriate; ESRS requires disclosure of changes to targets and to the methodologies used; PROV-O supplies the provenance vocabulary; sustained comparability requires supersession rather than silent overwrite.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-004", "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ], "layers": [ { "id": "ly-goal-record-lifecycle", "name": "Goal record lifecycle", "description": "Declared status of the goal record and the triggers that cause it to be reviewed.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-goal-status-and-review", "name": "Declared status and review triggers", "description": "The coded state of the goal record — proposed, approved, active, suspended, achieved, missed, superseded, withdrawn — and the cadence or events that trigger review, with attainment verdicts referenced from elsewhere.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-current-status", "text": "What is the current declared status of this goal record, and since when?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "Status code", "Status-effective timestamp in RFC 3339", "Party that set the status" ] }, { "id": "q-permitted-transitions", "text": "Which status transitions are permitted, and which are terminal?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "Permitted transition set", "Terminal status list", "Precondition per transition" ] }, { "id": "q-review-trigger", "text": "What cadence or event triggers a review of the goal irrespective of its measured progress?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "Review cadence", "Triggering event types", "Next scheduled review date" ] }, { "id": "q-attainment-verdict-source", "text": "Where does the verdict on attainment come from, given that it is not computed in this model?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "Assessment or observation record reference", "Assessing party", "Verdict reference identifier" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-goal-status-code", "name": "Goal status code", "description": "Declared state of the goal record.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "de-status-effective-time", "name": "Status effective time", "description": "RFC 3339 date-time from which the current status applies (event time).", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-review-trigger", "name": "Review trigger", "description": "Cadence or event that requires the goal to be reviewed.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-attainment-reference", "name": "Attainment assessment reference", "description": "Pointer to an externally produced assessment or observation supporting a status of achieved or missed.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Status is a coded field with an effective time; the verdicts behind it are produced by the measurement and assessment models, so no status log artifact is created here and no audit-trail semantics are claimed." } ] }, { "id": "ly-change-control-and-restatement", "name": "Change control and restatement", "description": "Controlled modification of targets, baselines and methodologies with preserved comparability.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-target-restatement", "name": "Target and methodology restatement", "description": "Record of what changed in a target, baseline or methodology, why, and how prior commitments remain comparable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-change-nature", "text": "What exactly changed: the target value, the baseline, the scope, or the methodology?", "kind": "process", "answer_data": [ "Changed element list", "Prior and new values", "Change class (correction, revision, methodological)" ] }, { "id": "q-change-justification", "text": "On what stated ground was the change made, and who authorised it?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "Justification text", "Authorising role reference", "Authorisation record reference" ] }, { "id": "q-comparability-effect", "text": "What is the effect of the change on comparability with previously reported commitments?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "Comparability assessment", "Restated prior values where applicable", "Disclosure obligation triggered" ] }, { "id": "q-ratchet-rule", "text": "Are weakenings of a target permitted, and under what additional conditions?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "Weakening permission rule", "Additional approval requirement", "Public disclosure requirement" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-change-class", "name": "Change class", "description": "Whether the change is a correction, a substantive revision or a methodological change.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-prior-value", "name": "Prior value", "description": "Value held before the change, retained for comparability.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-change-justification", "name": "Change justification", "description": "Stated ground for the change.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-target-restatement-note", "name": "Target restatement note", "description": "Sequentially numbered note describing one change to a target, baseline, scope or methodology, its justification, authorisation and comparability effect.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured change record", "Narrative restatement note" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Goal identity plus a monotonically increasing restatement sequence number issued by the master register; Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID as fallback. The sequence number never encodes a date.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "ly-provenance-and-versioning", "name": "Provenance and versioning", "description": "Origin, attribution and version structure of the goal record.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006", "SRC-004" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-record-provenance", "name": "Record provenance and time separation", "description": "Who stated the goal, from what source it was derived, and the separation of the commitment's event time from the record's capture time.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006", "SRC-001" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-provenance-attribution", "text": "Which agent stated this goal and which agent captured it into the register?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "Stating agent reference", "Capturing agent reference", "Qualified attribution role" ] }, { "id": "q-source-derivation", "text": "From which source document or upstream record was this goal derived, and at which version?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "Source document reference and version", "Derivation type", "Extraction method or tool" ] }, { "id": "q-time-separation", "text": "How are the commitment's event time and the record's ingestion time distinguished on this record?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "Event time in RFC 3339 with offset", "Ingestion or observation time in RFC 3339 with offset", "Reason for any lag" ] }, { "id": "q-confidence-of-capture", "text": "How confident is the capture, and what would falsify it?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "Confidence level", "Falsifying evidence description", "Verification reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-stating-agent", "name": "Stating agent", "description": "Agent to whom the goal statement is attributed.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "de-source-derivation-ref", "name": "Source derivation reference", "description": "Upstream document or record from which the goal was derived.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-event-time", "name": "Commitment event time", "description": "RFC 3339 date-time at which the goal was set, approved or came into force.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-ingestion-time", "name": "Record ingestion time", "description": "RFC 3339 date-time at which the record was captured or last ingested.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-provenance-statement", "name": "Goal provenance statement", "description": "PROV-aligned statement of attribution, derivation and generation for the goal record, including qualified roles and times.", "media_or_form": [ "Provenance graph aligned to PROV-O (format-neutral)", "Structured provenance record" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Governed IRI derived from the goal identity in the Dimension provenance namespace where no master-system provenance identifier exists; Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID as last resort.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "fd-version-and-supersession", "name": "Versioning and supersession", "description": "How successive versions of a goal record relate, which version is current, and how superseded versions remain resolvable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-current-version", "text": "Which version of this goal record is current, and how is it distinguished from its predecessors?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "Version identifier", "Current-version flag", "Predecessor version reference" ] }, { "id": "q-supersession-link", "text": "Which record supersedes this one, and does the successor keep the same identity?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "Supersedes and superseded-by references", "Identity continuity flag", "Effective date-time of supersession" ] }, { "id": "q-version-resolvability", "text": "Can a citation of an older version still be resolved, and for how long?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "Historic version resolvability rule", "Minimum retention period reference", "Redirect or tombstone behaviour" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-version-identifier", "name": "Version identifier", "description": "Version label of the goal record, separate from its identity.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-superseded-by-ref", "name": "Superseded-by reference", "description": "Reference to the record that supersedes this one.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-current-version-flag", "name": "Current version flag", "description": "Marks the version currently in force.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Version linkage is a small set of identifiers and flags that must be evaluated on every resolution of a goal citation; as an artifact it would risk drifting from the record it describes." } ] } ] }, { "id": "bn-assurance-interoperability-and-access", "name": "Definition quality, interoperability and access", "description": "Whether the goal record is well formed, how it maps to external frameworks, and who may see or reuse it.", "rationale": "ESRS and GPRAMA impose structural expectations on a well-formed target and mandate publication of certain goals; the SDG framework and iStar provide external element vocabularies for crosswalks; alignment must be recorded as mapping, not as conformance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001", "SRC-006", "SRC-007" ], "layers": [ { "id": "ly-definition-quality-and-validation", "name": "Definition quality and validation", "description": "Structural checks on the goal record and references to any external verification of the commitment.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-007" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-goal-definition-conformance", "name": "Definition conformance and verification references", "description": "The checklist of structural properties a goal record must satisfy, its failures, and pointers to any external assurance or verification of the target.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-structural-checks", "text": "Which structural conditions must hold for this record to be considered a usable goal?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "Check list (statement present, role assigned, owner assigned, measure or qualitative basis, horizon)", "Pass or fail per check", "Blocking versus advisory severity" ] }, { "id": "q-measurability-check", "text": "Is the goal measurable, and if not, is the non-practicability justification recorded?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "Measurability status", "Justification reference", "Compensating qualitative criteria" ] }, { "id": "q-outcome-orientation-check", "text": "Is the target outcome-oriented rather than a restatement of activity?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "Outcome orientation verdict", "Evidence of outcome linkage", "Remediation note" ] }, { "id": "q-external-verification", "text": "Has any external body verified or assured this target, and with what scope and conclusion?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "Verifier reference", "Assurance scope and level", "Conclusion reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-conformance-check-result", "name": "Conformance check result", "description": "Outcome of one structural check on the goal record.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "de-measurability-status", "name": "Measurability status", "description": "Whether the goal is measurable, with justification where it is not.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "de-verification-reference", "name": "External verification reference", "description": "Pointer to an external assurance or verification record covering the target.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-conformance-checklist", "name": "Goal definition conformance checklist", "description": "Numbered checklist instance recording, for one review round, which structural conditions the goal record satisfies and which remain open.", "media_or_form": [ "Structured checklist record", "Review report extract" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Goal identity plus review round sequence number from the owning quality register; Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID as fallback. Round numbers are sequential and carry no date component.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-002" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "ly-interoperability-and-alignment", "name": "Interoperability and alignment", "description": "Mappings to external goal frameworks and the format-neutral exchange rules for goal records.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-004", "SRC-007", "SRC-008" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-external-alignment-crosswalk", "name": "External alignment crosswalk", "description": "Mappings from this goal to external framework elements, with mapping strength and recorded divergences, asserted as alignment and never as conformance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-004", "SRC-001", "SRC-007" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-mapped-elements", "text": "To which external framework elements does this goal map, and at what version of each framework?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "External element identifiers (e.g. SDG target code, ESRS datapoint, statutory goal)", "Framework version", "Mapping direction" ] }, { "id": "q-mapping-strength", "text": "Is each mapping exact, broader, narrower or merely related?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "Mapping strength code", "Justification note", "Known non-equivalence" ] }, { "id": "q-conformance-claim", "text": "Does the organisation claim conformance to the external framework, and what evidence supports the claim?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "Conformance claim flag (default: none)", "Supporting evidence reference", "Claim scope" ] }, { "id": "q-mapping-conflict", "text": "Where do the external framework's semantics conflict with this model's, and how is the conflict recorded?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "Conflict description", "Affected element pairs", "Resolution decision or open status" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-external-element-mapping", "name": "External element mapping", "description": "Mapping from this goal to an external framework element with framework and version.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-mapping-strength", "name": "Mapping strength", "description": "Exact, broader, narrower or related relationship of the mapping.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "de-conformance-claim-flag", "name": "Conformance claim flag", "description": "Whether a conformance claim (as opposed to alignment) is asserted, and its evidence.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "art-alignment-crosswalk", "name": "Alignment crosswalk table", "description": "Table mapping goal records to external framework elements with strength, version and recorded conflicts.", "media_or_form": [ "Tabular mapping set (format-neutral)", "Machine-readable mapping graph" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identifier from the owning mapping register; otherwise a governed IRI naming the source and target frameworks; otherwise a Dimension-minted UUIDv7/ULID, with framework versions carried as attributes.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-004" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "fd-format-neutral-exchange", "name": "Format-neutral exchange rules", "description": "Requirements that keep goal semantics stable across storage and interface projections, including canonical ordering and code-list versioning on export.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-008", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-canonical-form", "text": "What is the canonical form of a goal record for comparison and hashing, independent of serialisation?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "Canonical field ordering and normalisation rules", "Excluded volatile fields", "Digest algorithm" ] }, { "id": "q-projection-loss", "text": "Which fields may be lost or flattened when projecting to a given storage or interface format, and how is that recorded?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "Projection loss list per format", "Mitigation or extension mechanism", "Round-trip test reference" ] }, { "id": "q-reference-resolution", "text": "How must outgoing references be expressed so that they resolve outside the originating system?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "Reference expression rule (identifier plus scheme)", "Resolution endpoint convention", "Handling of unresolvable references" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-canonical-digest", "name": "Canonical digest", "description": "Digest of the canonical form of the goal record, used to detect drift across projections.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "de-projection-loss-note", "name": "Projection loss note", "description": "Recorded loss or flattening incurred by a specific projection.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "These are rules and derived values applied when serialising the record; materialising them as an artifact would create a projection-specific document in a model that must remain format-neutral." } ] }, { "id": "ly-access-retention-and-disclosure", "name": "Access, disclosure and retention", "description": "Who may read the goal, whether it must be published, and how long superseded goal records are kept.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ], "findings": [ { "id": "fd-disclosure-and-confidentiality", "name": "Disclosure status and confidentiality", "description": "Whether the goal must be published, may be withheld, or is embargoed, and the sensitivity constraints on individual-level goals.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-publication-obligation", "text": "Is publication of this goal mandated, and under which instrument and timetable?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "Publication obligation flag", "Mandating instrument reference", "Publication deadline or cycle" ] }, { "id": "q-withholding-ground", "text": "On what ground may parts of the goal be withheld or redacted before disclosure?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "Withholding ground code (commercial sensitivity, security, legal privilege)", "Redacted element list", "Approving authority" ] }, { "id": "q-personal-data-exposure", "text": "Does the goal identify or target an identifiable individual, and what restriction follows?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "Personal data indicator", "Lawful basis or restriction reference", "Aggregation requirement before sharing" ] }, { "id": "q-embargo-window", "text": "Is the goal under embargo until a stated release moment?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "Embargo-until timestamp in RFC 3339", "Audience permitted before release", "Release trigger" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-disclosure-status", "name": "Disclosure status", "description": "Public, internal, restricted or embargoed status of the goal record.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-withholding-ground", "name": "Withholding ground", "description": "Stated ground for withholding or redacting part of the record.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-personal-data-indicator", "name": "Personal data indicator", "description": "Whether the goal concerns an identifiable individual.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Disclosure status is a coded control field consumed by the access layer at query time; access decisions and their enforcement belong to the adopting Dimension's access model, so no artifact is produced here." }, { "id": "fd-retention-and-disposition-reference", "name": "Retention class and disposition reference", "description": "How long goal records, superseded versions and restatement notes are kept, and which external policy executes disposition.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-retention-class", "text": "Which retention class applies to this goal record and to its superseded versions?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "Retention class code", "Minimum retention period", "Trigger that starts the retention clock" ] }, { "id": "q-comparability-retention", "text": "Which prior targets and baselines must be retained to keep reported progress comparable?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "Retained prior element list", "Comparability period", "Disclosure dependency" ] }, { "id": "q-disposition-owner", "text": "Which model or policy executes disposition, given that this model only declares the class?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "Records or retention model reference", "Dimension policy reference", "Executing role" ] }, { "id": "q-tombstone-content", "text": "What remains resolvable after a goal record is withdrawn or destroyed?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "Tombstone fields retained (identifier, status, supersession link)", "Fields removed", "Resolution behaviour for old citations" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "de-retention-class", "name": "Retention class", "description": "Retention classification applied to the goal record and its versions.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "de-disposition-policy-ref", "name": "Disposition policy reference", "description": "Reference to the policy or model that executes disposition.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "de-tombstone-flag", "name": "Tombstone flag", "description": "Marks a record reduced to a resolvable tombstone.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Retention is declared here as a class and a pointer; the disposition schedule, its execution and its evidence are owned by the records-management model of the adopting Dimension and must not be reproduced." } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "fn-register-goal", "name": "Register goal", "description": "Create a canonical goal record with identity, statement, role and disclosure status.", "inputs": [ "Goal statement text and language tag", "Record role code (objective, target, aspiration)", "Authoritative identifier or minting request", "Disclosure status" ], "outputs": [ "Goal register entry with resolvable identity", "Initial status of proposed or approved", "Ingestion timestamp in RFC 3339" ], "preconditions": [ "Statement is non-empty and attributable to a stating agent", "Identity source determined per the identity priority", "No existing active record with the same authoritative identifier" ], "effects": [ "A citable goal record exists", "Provenance attribution and ingestion time are recorded" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-001", "SRC-008" ] }, { "id": "fn-classify-goal", "name": "Classify goal", "description": "Assign level, result type, obligation status and expression mode codes from versioned code lists.", "inputs": [ "Goal identity", "Code list identifiers and versions", "Assigned codes" ], "outputs": [ "Classification set with code list versions", "Validation result for unknown or deprecated codes" ], "preconditions": [ "Goal record exists", "Referenced code list versions are resolvable" ], "effects": [ "Goal becomes comparable within its classification cohort", "Deprecated code use is flagged for review" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "fn-bind-measure-and-target", "name": "Bind measure and target parameters", "description": "Attach an indicator reference and the baseline, target value, unit, form, scope and horizon, or record the qualitative basis where no measure exists.", "inputs": [ "Goal identity", "Measure definition reference and version, or qualitative basis", "Baseline value and base period", "Target value, unit, absolute or relative flag, comparison operator", "Target year or period and scope" ], "outputs": [ "Target specification sheet", "Measurability status with justification where not measurable" ], "preconditions": [ "Referenced measure definition resolves and is not retired", "Unit is compatible with the measure definition", "Base period precedes the target period" ], "effects": [ "The goal becomes testable by an external assessor", "Absence of a measure is explicitly justified rather than implied" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-003", "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "fn-refine-goal", "name": "Refine goal", "description": "Record AND/OR refinement into sub-goals and typed contribution links to other goals or qualities.", "inputs": [ "Parent goal identity", "Child goal references", "Refinement type", "Contribution link types and justification" ], "outputs": [ "Updated goal refinement map", "Structural violation report (cycles, orphans, unallocated remainder)" ], "preconditions": [ "Parent and children exist and are not tombstoned", "Refinement does not introduce a cycle" ], "effects": [ "Satisfaction dependencies between goals become explicit", "Coverage gaps in decomposition become visible" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "fn-assign-accountability", "name": "Assign accountability", "description": "Name the accountable party, contributors and record steward with effective dates.", "inputs": [ "Goal identity", "Party references and role codes", "Appointment reference and effective-from timestamp" ], "outputs": [ "Accountability assignment record", "Superseded assignment link where a transfer occurred" ], "preconditions": [ "Party references resolve in the party register", "At most one accountable party is active at any time" ], "effects": [ "A single answerable party is identifiable for the goal", "Accountability transfers are traceable to appointment records" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "fn-transition-goal-state", "name": "Transition goal state", "description": "Move the goal record between declared statuses with reason, actor and effective time.", "inputs": [ "Goal identity", "Target status code", "Reason and, for achieved or missed, an external assessment reference", "Effective time in RFC 3339" ], "outputs": [ "Updated status with effective time and setting party", "Rejection when the transition is not permitted" ], "preconditions": [ "Transition is permitted from the current status", "Terminal statuses of achieved, missed or withdrawn require a referenced assessment or decision" ], "effects": [ "The declared state of the commitment changes", "No attainment value is computed or stored by this function" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "fn-restate-target", "name": "Restate target", "description": "Apply a controlled change to a target value, baseline, scope or methodology and preserve comparability.", "inputs": [ "Goal identity", "Changed elements with prior and new values", "Justification and authorising role", "Change class" ], "outputs": [ "Sequentially numbered target restatement note", "Comparability assessment and retained prior values" ], "preconditions": [ "Change is authorised by a role entitled to alter the commitment", "Prior values are preserved before overwrite", "Weakening of a target satisfies the declared additional conditions" ], "effects": [ "The target changes without loss of the prior commitment record", "Downstream consumers can detect and explain the discontinuity" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-006" ] }, { "id": "fn-record-alignment", "name": "Record external alignment", "description": "Add or update a mapping between the goal and an external framework element, with strength, version and conflicts.", "inputs": [ "Goal identity", "External framework identifier and version", "External element identifier", "Mapping strength and justification" ], "outputs": [ "Updated alignment crosswalk entry", "Recorded conflict notes where semantics diverge" ], "preconditions": [ "External framework version is stated", "No conformance is asserted without an evidence reference" ], "effects": [ "Interoperability with external reporting frameworks is explicit", "Semantic divergences are recorded rather than smoothed over" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-004", "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "fn-attach-attainment-reference", "name": "Attach attainment reference", "description": "Link an externally produced assessment, observation or assurance record to the goal without evaluating it.", "inputs": [ "Goal identity", "External record reference and producing party", "Coverage period of the external record" ], "outputs": [ "Reference entry with producing party and period", "Rejection when the reference does not resolve" ], "preconditions": [ "Reference resolves in the owning measurement, assessment or assurance register", "Coverage period is expressed with explicit offsets" ], "effects": [ "Evidence supporting a status claim is traceable", "No verdict, score or progress value is derived inside this model" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "fn-withdraw-and-tombstone-goal", "name": "Withdraw and tombstone goal", "description": "Retire a goal record, replace it with a resolvable tombstone and hand disposition to the retention owner.", "inputs": [ "Goal identity", "Withdrawal reason and authorising decision reference", "Retention class and successor reference where applicable" ], "outputs": [ "Tombstone record retaining identifier, final status and supersession link", "Disposition request referred to the records policy owner" ], "preconditions": [ "Withdrawal is authorised", "Comparability-critical prior targets are retained per the retention class", "Inbound references have been inventoried" ], "effects": [ "Existing citations continue to resolve to a tombstone", "Physical destruction is executed by the records model, not here" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001", "SRC-006" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-ACT-008 — Action / Activity (registered parent model)", "relation": "CHILD", "purpose": "The goal is the intended end state of action; this model is registered beneath the action model, which retains planning, resourcing, scheduling and execution of the means (EMAS clause 6.2.2 assigns what, resources, who, when and how results are evaluated to action planning).", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "Indicator / measure definition model (sibling; identifier to be assigned by the registry)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Carry an indicator reference, unit and the goal-specific target parameters only; the indicator's definition, computation method, data sources and periodicity remain owned by the measure model.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-004" ] }, { "target": "Measurement / observation (time series) model (sibling; identifier to be assigned)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Reference observed values and assessment outputs used to support a status claim; no observation values, aggregation or progress computation are stored or performed here.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "Party / organisation / role model (sibling; identifier to be assigned)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Resolve accountable party, contributors, record steward and authorising roles; party master data and appointment lifecycle stay in that model.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "Policy / rule / requirement model (sibling; identifier to be assigned)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Cite the governing policy the objective must be consistent with and the constraints bounding permissible target values; obligation expression, evaluation and enforcement remain in that model.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "Decision / approval model (sibling; identifier to be assigned)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Cite the decision that approved, revised or withdrew the goal; the deliberation, voting and decision record structure are not reproduced here.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004" ] }, { "target": "Risk model (sibling; identifier to be assigned)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Link risks registered against achievement of the goal, since risk is expressed relative to objectives; assessment, treatment and monitoring stay in the risk model.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "Records management / retention model of the adopting Dimension", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Declare retention class and tombstone expectations for superseded goal records; scheduling, execution and evidence of disposition are owned there.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-004" ] }, { "target": "Provenance mixin aligned to W3C PROV-O", "relation": "MIX-IN", "purpose": "Reuse Entity/Activity/Agent attribution, derivation and qualified-influence patterns for goal-record provenance instead of defining a local provenance vocabulary.", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008" ] }, { "target": "UN SDG global indicator framework (goal, target and indicator codes)", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Map goal records to SDG target codes as an external governed scheme, recording framework version and mapping strength; the SDG framework's custodianship and refinement process are external.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "ESRS 2 minimum disclosure requirement for targets (MDR-T)", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Align target attributes (baseline, base year, unit, scope, period, milestones, methodology, changes) with the reporting datapoints, without adopting the sustainability statement's preparation or assurance process.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "GPRA Modernization Act performance goal, indicator and milestone definitions (31 U.S.C. 1115)", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Align the target-level-of-performance and lead-official concepts for public-sector goal records; the statutory planning and reporting cycle itself is out of scope.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "iStar 2.0 goal modelling constructs (goal, quality, refinement, contribution, dependency)", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Adopt refinement and contribution semantics for goal structure while leaving actor-dependency analysis and requirements-engineering method to that language.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "The adopting Dimension names one owner package that holds the goal register, its code lists and its mapping tables, and publishes the owner contact and escalation path.", "The owner package declares which external register (if any) is the master for goal identifiers, so that the identity priority can be applied deterministically.", "The owner package publishes the versioned goal type code list and the alignment crosswalks it maintains, including their refresh cadence.", "The owner package declares which sibling models own measures, actions, decisions, risk, access and retention, and refuses local re-implementation of those functions." ], "namespace_guidance": "Goal identities resolve under a single Dimension-governed namespace segment (for example {dimension-root}/goal/{identifier}) that is independent of storage technology; external governed codes such as SDG target codes are carried as additional identifiers in their own scheme namespace and are never rewritten into the local namespace.", "registry_links": [ "Registry entry vr.wm-knw-011 (WM-KNW-011) under nav path NAV.INF.KNW.GOL with domain tags INF.KNW.GOL", "Parent registry entry WM-ACT-008 for the action/activity model that owns pursuit and execution", "Registry entries for the measure, observation, party, policy, decision, risk, access and retention models referenced by the composition ledger (identifiers to be assigned)" ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "The canonical form of a goal record orders fields by identifier, normalises whitespace and Unicode (NFC), expresses all timestamps as RFC 3339 with an explicit offset or Z, and excludes volatile fields such as ingestion time and cache digests from the digest input.", "Numeric target and baseline values are canonicalised with their unit code and an explicit scale; no locale-dependent formatting is retained.", "References are canonicalised as scheme-qualified identifier pairs, never as system-local primary keys." ], "patch_rules": [ "Patches address a single goal record version and state the expected preceding version; a patch against a stale version is rejected rather than merged.", "Substantive changes to statement, baseline, target value, scope, methodology or horizon require an accompanying restatement note; editorial patches must be marked as such and may not touch those fields.", "Patches never delete prior values that are required for comparability; they add successor values and supersession links." ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Adding optional data elements or new code values is backward compatible; removing an element, tightening cardinality or changing the meaning of a code is breaking and requires a new model version.", "Code list versions are pinned per record; consumers must resolve codes against the pinned version rather than the latest.", "Alignment mappings may be added or restated without breaking consumers, provided mapping strength and framework version are stated." ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier issued by the register that owns the goal or artifact (for example a corporate objective register key, a statutory citation or an SDG target code assigned by the UN Statistical Commission).", "Governed global identifier or IRI under a namespace controlled by a named authority, where no master-system identifier exists.", "UUIDv7 or ULID minted by the adopting Dimension at creation, recorded together with the minting authority." ], "timestamp_rule": "All time values are recorded as RFC 3339 date-time strings with seconds precision and an explicit UTC offset or Z; event time (when the goal was set, approved, came into force, or when a milestone date falls) is stored separately from observation or ingestion time (when the record was captured or last loaded), and base years and target years are period codes rather than timestamps and are never used as identifiers.", "serial_naming_rule": "Artifacts that occur in a series — restatement notes and conformance checklists — are named by the owning goal identity plus a monotonically increasing integer sequence issued by the owning register (for example {goal-identity}/restatement/7); sequence numbers never encode dates, are never reused after withdrawal, and gaps are recorded with a reason.", "integrity_rule": "Each artifact carries a digest over its canonical form plus the identity and version of the goal record it describes; a consumer must treat a mismatch between the stored digest and the recomputed digest as a defect and must not silently repair it. Superseded artifacts remain resolvable with their original digests." }, "policies": [ "Alignment with an external framework is recorded as a mapping with a stated strength and framework version; conformance is asserted only where an evidence reference exists, and any semantic divergence is recorded as a conflict rather than resolved by wording.", "This model declares commitments and their parameters only: no attainment value, score, verdict, enforcement action or audit trail is computed, executed or stored here, and any such need is routed to the referenced measure, assessment, policy or records model.", "A goal without a measure is permitted only with a recorded justification that quantification is not practicable, together with the qualitative criteria and base period used instead.", "Weakening or withdrawing a commitment is a controlled act: it requires an authorising role, a restatement note, retention of prior values and, where publication is mandated, disclosure of the change." ], "crud": { "read": [ "Reads resolve a goal by authoritative identifier, governed code or local identifier and return the pinned code list versions with the record.", "Reads of a superseded version return the version together with its supersession link and the current version's identifier.", "Reads honour disclosure status and embargo timestamps; restricted elements are omitted with an indication that a redaction applies, not silently dropped.", "Bulk reads return the canonical form so that consumers can verify digests independently of the serialisation used." ], "create": [ "Creation requires a statement, a record role, a disclosure status and an identity assigned by the identity priority.", "Creation records the stating agent, the capturing agent, event time and ingestion time as separate values.", "Creation of a target requires a parent objective reference or an explicit justification for a standalone target.", "Duplicate detection runs against authoritative identifiers and governed external codes before a local identifier is minted." ], "update": [ "Editorial updates may change wording, labels and translations and must be marked as editorial.", "Substantive updates to statement meaning, baseline, target value, unit, scope, methodology or horizon require an authorising role and generate a restatement note with prior values retained.", "Status updates are constrained by the permitted transition set and require an external assessment or decision reference for terminal statuses.", "Every update writes a new ingestion time and preserves the previously recorded event times." ], "delete": [ "Goal records are not physically deleted by this model. Withdrawal sets a terminal status and reduces the record to a tombstone that retains the identifier, final status, effective period, supersession link and retention class so that existing citations and reported comparatives continue to resolve.", "Prior targets, baselines and restatement notes needed for comparability with published reporting are retained for the declared retention period and may not be removed by an update.", "Physical destruction, retention-schedule execution and its evidence are outside this model's boundary: they are executed by the referenced records-management/retention model or, where none is registered, by the adopting Dimension's records policy, which owns the disposition decision and its audit evidence.", "Erasure demanded on privacy grounds for a goal that identifies an individual is routed to the Dimension's privacy and records policy; this model records only that a restriction applies and which policy governs the outcome." ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Goal owner (accountable party)", "responsibilities": [ "Answer for whether the goal is met", "Approve substantive changes to target value, scope or horizon", "Confirm the declared authority basis and disclosure status" ] }, { "name": "Goal record steward", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain the accuracy, identity and version linkage of the record", "Run definition conformance checks and track open findings", "Keep references to measures, actions, decisions and risks resolvable" ] }, { "name": "Measure custodian (external, referenced)", "responsibilities": [ "Own the indicator definition, unit and computation method referenced by the goal", "Notify goal stewards of measure changes or retirement that force restatement" ] }, { "name": "Register administrator", "responsibilities": [ "Operate identifier assignment under the identity priority and prevent reuse", "Publish and version code lists and alignment crosswalks", "Apply retention classes and create tombstones on withdrawal" ] }, { "name": "Disclosure and access authority", "responsibilities": [ "Decide publication, embargo and redaction of goal records", "Record withholding grounds and the approving authority", "Route privacy-restricted goals to the Dimension privacy policy" ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Read access defaults to the goal's disclosure status: records marked public are readable by any consumer, all other records are readable only by principals holding an explicit grant in the adopting Dimension's access model. Write access defaults to deny and is granted only to the record steward for editorial changes and to the goal owner or an authorising role for substantive changes. This model declares the control fields; evaluation and enforcement of grants are performed by the access model.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Records under a mandated publication obligation may not be marked restricted once the publication deadline has passed, absent a recorded withholding ground.", "Embargoed records are readable before release only by the audience named in the embargo entry.", "Goals identifying an individual are restricted by default and are shared externally only in aggregated form.", "Tombstones remain readable to any principal that could read the record's identifier, even when the withdrawn content was restricted." ], "audit_requirements": [ "Each substantive change records the authorising role, the reason and the event time; the immutable audit trail itself is kept by the adopting Dimension's audit model, not by this model.", "Disclosure status changes and redaction decisions record the approving authority and the withholding ground for later review.", "Withdrawal and tombstone creation record the authorising decision reference so that removal can be reconstructed by the records owner." ] }, "agents_bootstrap": { "filename": "AGENTS.md", "required_fields": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL" ], "read_order": [ "Read AGENTS.md first and resolve Name and Type to confirm this is the Goal / Objective model (WM-KNW-011).", "Follow Specification URL for scope, boundaries and the composition ledger before assuming any capability.", "Follow Storage type URL to learn the projection in use (record store, document store, graph or version-controlled files) and the canonical form rules.", "Follow Interface URL for read and write operations, identity resolution and access scopes.", "Follow Processes URL for registration, restatement, status transition and withdrawal procedures, and route measurement, execution, enforcement and disposition requests to the referenced sibling models." ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "Covers the declarative surface of a goal/objective record as evidenced by ten Claude-only sources: statement and achievement criteria, objective/target/indicator roles, identity and governed codes, measure binding by reference, target value and baseline, methodology, horizon and milestones, scope, refinement and alignment, accountability and mandate, lifecycle, restatement, provenance and versioning, definition quality, interoperability, disclosure and retention declaration. Measurement, execution, evaluation, enforcement and audit custody are excluded and referenced. Coverage is asserted only against the cited EU and US instruments, one UN indicator framework, one provenance recommendation and one goal-modelling language; no completeness is claimed across jurisdictions, across motivational theory, or against the three unretrieved standards (BMM 1.3, ArchiMate 3.2, ISO 9000:2015), and under the owner-authorized waiver no independent second-provider coverage test was run.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Identity priority applied literally: master-system identifier, then governed code/IRI (SDG target codes as the worked example), then UUIDv7/ULID; re-identification rules and the prohibition on date-based identity are stated." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Declared statuses, permitted transitions, review triggers, restatement, supersession and tombstoning are modelled; the execution-goal state machine (ROS 2) is explicitly excluded as belonging to the executing system." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Refinement (AND/OR), contribution links, alignment to higher ends, means/action references, driver, constraint and risk references, all as typed outgoing references." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "Target year/period, effective window, calendar convention, milestones, and separation of event time from ingestion time with RFC 3339 and explicit offsets." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "PROV-O aligned attribution, derivation and qualified roles; capture confidence and falsification questions included." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Accountable party (GPRAMA lead official pattern), contributors, record steward, transfer rules; party master data referenced, not duplicated." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Structural conformance checklist, measurability and outcome-orientation checks, refinement cycle checks, patch and compatibility rules; external assurance is referenced only." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Disclosure status, publication obligation, withholding grounds, embargo and privacy restriction as control fields; grant evaluation and enforcement left to the access model." }, { "dimension": "retention and deletion", "status": "covered", "notes": "No physical delete in this model; tombstone content specified, comparability retention required, and disposition execution explicitly assigned to the records/retention model or Dimension policy." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "covered", "notes": "Alignment crosswalks with strength and framework version, no conformance without evidence, format-neutral canonical form and projection-loss recording." }, { "dimension": "measurement boundary", "status": "covered", "notes": "Measure binding is reference-only; indicator definition, computation and observation values are out of scope by explicit boundary note and composition link." }, { "dimension": "conflict and priority", "status": "covered", "notes": "Competing goals, declared priority and trade-off guidance are recorded as declarations; runtime arbitration is not performed here." }, { "dimension": "authority and legitimacy", "status": "covered", "notes": "Mandating instrument, binding force, approval reference and stakeholder involvement recorded; the decision record itself is referenced." }, { "dimension": "spatial", "status": "covered", "notes": "Geographic and jurisdictional scope of the goal are modelled as facets of the scope finding; no geometry semantics are claimed." }, { "dimension": "localisation", "status": "gap", "notes": "Language variants and authoritative-language marking are modelled, but no primary source was found governing translation equivalence for goal statements; treat as unsupported structure pending evidence." } ], "known_omissions": [ "OMG Business Motivation Model 1.3 could not be text-extracted from the published PDF, so its Goal-versus-Objective distinction is not cited; the role distinction here rests on EMAS, GPRAMA and ESRS instead.", "The ArchiMate 3.2 motivation elements (Goal, Outcome, Driver, Assessment) are behind an authentication redirect and are therefore not cited or aligned; this is a known alignment gap.", "ISO 9000:2015 term 3.7.1 ('objective: result to be achieved') could not be retrieved from the ISO Online Browsing Platform (HTTP 403); only ISO's public explanatory page is cited, so the ISO term definition is not directly evidenced.", "OKR, KPI cascades and balanced-scorecard practice are deliberately excluded as non-normative common practice rather than requirements.", "Individual performance appraisal goals are only touched through the privacy restriction; employment-law constraints on personal objectives are not modelled.", "No formal satisfaction-propagation or goal-reasoning semantics are defined; refinement is recorded declaratively and inference is left to consuming reasoners.", "Milestone typing partially overlaps the plan/schedule model; the boundary is declared but not settled by a primary source." ], "conflicts": [ "Vocabulary inversion across regimes: EMAS treats 'objective' as the overall end and 'target' as the derived detailed requirement, while 31 U.S.C. 1115 defines a 'performance goal' as itself a target level of performance, and ISO management-system standards use 'objective' for both levels. The model resolves this with an explicit record-role code plus a naming-regime tag rather than by adopting one vocabulary.", "Granularity and authority differ between frameworks: an SDG target is a globally negotiated commitment measured by custodian-agency indicators, whereas an ESRS target is an undertaking-level commitment anchored to a self-declared baseline and base year; mapping between them is at best 'related', never 'exact'.", "iStar 2.0 requires a goal to have clear-cut criteria of achievement and pushes anything else to 'Quality', while EMAS accepts objectives that are quantified only 'where practicable' and ESRS provides an explicit fallback when no measurable target exists; the model keeps measurability optional but forces a recorded justification.", "An execution goal in ROS 2 is a request whose terminal states (SUCCEEDED, ABORTED, CANCELED) are owned by the executing server, which conflicts with the standing-commitment lifecycle used here; the two state machines are deliberately not merged." ], "regional_assumptions": [ "EU instruments (EMAS Regulation and its 2017 annex revision, ESRS via Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772) and US federal law (31 U.S.C. 1115) are used as normative exemplars; other jurisdictions may mandate different or additional target attributes.", "The SDG global indicator framework is global in reach but voluntary at national level, and its indicator set is refined annually, so mapped codes must always be version-pinned.", "Base-year and target-year semantics assume a stated calendar or fiscal convention; fiscal-year boundaries and reporting cut-offs vary by jurisdiction and organisation.", "Publication obligations assumed here derive from the cited EU and US instruments only; disclosure defaults must be re-derived for other regimes.", "Language and script assumptions follow the cited English-language instruments; authoritative-language rules for multilingual jurisdictions are not evidenced." ], "adversarial_checks": [ "Tested whether a measure is mandatory for a goal: EMAS ('quantified where practicable') and the ESRS fallback for undertakings without measurable targets both permit unmeasured objectives, so a required measure element would have been unsupported; measurability is optional but must carry a justification.", "Tested whether progress computation belongs here: EMAS clause 6.2.2 assigns 'how the results will be evaluated, including indicators' to the planning of actions, and ESRS separates metrics (MDR-M) from targets (MDR-T), so evaluation was moved out to composition links and out_of_scope.", "Tested whether the ROS 2 action goal state machine should be adopted as the goal lifecycle: it is owned by the executing action server and describes a request, not a standing commitment, so it was recorded as a boundary note and counterexample instead.", "Tested whether 'goal' and 'target' warrant separate model entries: the cited regimes disagree on naming but agree on a derived-detail relationship, so a single entity with a role code and a naming-regime tag was retained rather than splitting the model.", "Tested whether milestones should be their own model: GPRAMA defines a milestone as a scheduled event signifying completion of a deliverable, which leans towards the plan model; milestones were kept as declared interim commitments with the overlap recorded as an unresolved boundary.", "Tested whether an audit trail could be claimed: no cited source grants this model audit custody, so audit evidence and disposition execution were assigned to the Dimension's audit and records models with only reason, actor and event time held locally." ] }, "researchAdjudication": { "providerMode": "single-provider-waiver", "activeProviders": [ "claude" ], "waivedProviders": [ "grok" ], "providerPolicy": { "contract_version": "1.0.0", "mode": "single-provider-waiver", "effective_at": "2026-08-29T09:06:27Z", "scope": "Queued subject-model research from WM-XCT-013 onward", "active_providers": [ "claude" ], "waived_providers": [ { "provider": "grok", "authorized_by": "repository owner", "authorized_at": "2026-08-29T09:06:27Z", "reason": "The repository owner explicitly instructed the research queue to continue without Grok after repeated structured-output failures." } ], "review_rule": "Claude-only results require a separate no-tools adversarial audit and remain reviewable drafts with a visible single-provider hold." }, "boundaryDecision": { "entry_kind": "entity", "status": "accepted", "rationale": "Two axes must not be conflated. On the record-plane axis the frozen registry value 'standalone-mm' stays correct: it classifies vr.wm-knw-011 as a standalone mega-model registry row rather than a sub-entry of another record, and it says nothing about the thing modelled. On the subject-model axis the defensible schema kind is 'entity': the goal record carries identity independent of its attribute values (master identifier, then governed code or IRI, then minted UUIDv7/ULID), keeps that identity through editorial change, restatement and supersession, has a declared lifecycle with terminal statuses and a resolvable tombstone, and is answerable to a single named accountable party. 'aggregate' was seriously tested and rejected: restatement notes, conformance checklists, milestone schedules and target specification sheets are all identified by goal identity plus a local discriminator, and the patch rule (single goal record version, expected preceding version, rejection on staleness) reads like an aggregate consistency boundary, but three declared artifacts (goal type code list, accountability assignment record, alignment crosswalk) are mastered by external vocabulary, HR/governance and mapping registers, so no closed transactional boundary over the artifact set can be asserted. 'relationship' is rejected because refinement, contribution and alignment are typed outgoing references held by the record rather than the subject of the model; 'classifier' is rejected because the code lists are consumed and version-pinned here, not governed here; 'event' is rejected because status transitions and approvals are recorded as coded state with effective time while the approval act itself is owned by the decision model." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Aggregate root identity: the canonical goal record", "disposition": "accepted with named exceptions", "rationale": "Every serial and derived artifact (target specification sheet, milestone schedule, restatement note, conformance checklist, provenance statement, refinement map) is identified from goal identity plus a register-issued discriminator, so the root is unambiguous. The exceptions must be stated in the draft: goal type code list, accountability assignment and alignment crosswalk are mastered elsewhere and are therefore referenced members, not owned parts." }, { "concept": "art-goal-type-code-list as an owned artifact of fd-goal-classification", "disposition": "rejected as owned; retain as referenced external artifact", "rationale": "The owner package requirements already assign publication and versioning of the goal type code list to the owning vocabulary register, and the model refuses local re-implementation of sibling functions. Holding the code list as a produced artifact here makes the goal model a classifier of its own typing vocabulary and creates the second divergent definition the measure-binding rationale explicitly forbids." }, { "concept": "Single entity with record-role code versus separate Goal and Target model entries", "disposition": "accepted (single entity plus role code and naming-regime tag)", "rationale": "The cited regimes invert vocabulary (EMAS objective-versus-target, 31 U.S.C. 1115 performance goal as a target level, ISO using objective for both) but agree on a derived-detail relation. A role code with a naming-regime tag preserves both readings without privileging one legal vocabulary, and splitting would duplicate identity, lifecycle and provenance machinery across two entries." }, { "concept": "SRC-009 (ROS 2 Actions) cited as positive support for fd-goal-identity, fd-goal-status-and-review and fn-transition-goal-state", "disposition": "rejected as positive support; retained only as boundary counterexample", "rationale": "The model states that the ROS 2 action-goal state machine is owned by the executing server, describes a request rather than a standing commitment, and is deliberately not imported. Citing it as source support for standing-record identity and for the state-transition function contradicts the model's own boundary note; those three support links must be re-anchored to SRC-001, SRC-002 and SRC-004 or the citation reduced to the boundary note where it already sits." }, { "concept": "SRC-010 (ISO committee explanatory page) supporting the strategic/tactical/operational level vocabulary", "disposition": "deferred; mark as unsupported structure pending evidence", "rationale": "SRC-010 is the only non-primary source in the pack (tier 2, primary_source false) and the known omissions concede that ISO 9000:2015 term 3.7.1 could not be retrieved. The goal-level taxonomy in q-goal-level therefore rests on an explanatory web page, and should carry the same visible 'unsupported structure pending evidence' marking already applied to localisation rather than sitting silently as covered." }, { "concept": "Localisation and authoritative-language equivalence", "disposition": "accepted as a declared gap; hold must stay visible", "rationale": "The coverage checklist already records localisation as the single gap and states that no primary source governs translation equivalence for goal statements. That honesty is upheld, but fd-goal-wording-and-language must be published with the gap marking attached to the finding itself, not only in the checklist, so a reader of the structure cannot mistake it for evidenced content." }, { "concept": "Milestone typing overlap with the plan/schedule model", "disposition": "deferred as an unsettled boundary", "rationale": "GPRAMA defines a milestone as a scheduled event signifying completion of a deliverable, which leans toward the plan model, while ESRS interim targets are commitments. Keeping milestones as declared interim commitments with the overlap recorded is the defensible interim position, but q-milestone-significance is currently the only mechanism separating the two readings and cannot settle ownership without a primary source." }, { "concept": "Audit-trail custody", "disposition": "accepted (no custody claimed)", "rationale": "Out-of-scope, policies, the status finding rationale and access.audit_requirements agree: reason, actor and event time are held locally while the immutable trail belongs to the adopting Dimension's audit model. The adversarial check that no cited source grants audit custody is sound and the residual local fields are the minimum needed to make a change attributable, not a trail." }, { "concept": "Retention declared as class and pointer, disposition executed elsewhere", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The delete rules, the retention finding, the boundary note against the records-management model and the tombstone content specification are mutually consistent: no physical delete, comparability retention enforced, disposition and its evidence assigned outward, privacy erasure routed to the Dimension policy with only the restriction recorded here. No source in the pack grants disposition authority, so the outward assignment is correct." }, { "concept": "Access control fields versus the declared access scope vocabulary", "disposition": "accepted with a correction note", "rationale": "Restricting evaluation and enforcement to the access model is correct and evidenced by the disclosure finding rationale. However the declared scopes (bundle, layer, finding, artifact) are research-structure granularities and do not name the record elements the exceptions actually govern: embargo audiences, individual-identifying goals shared only in aggregate, and tombstones readable when the withdrawn content was restricted. The mismatch is a coherence gap to resolve at specification time, not a blocker for a draft." }, { "concept": "Artifact identity and timestamp rules across all twelve artifacts", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "Every identity_strategy applies the same three-step priority, every one bars date-based identity, and the base-year and target-year prohibition is repeated in the timestamp rule. The two serial artifacts (restatement note, conformance checklist) are exactly the ones that recur per goal, their sequences are register-issued, non-reusable and gap-annotated, and the integrity rule forbids silent digest repair. This is the strongest internally verified part of the result." }, { "concept": "Frozen registry parent_ids WM-ACT-008 against nav path NAV.INF.KNW.GOL", "disposition": "deferred; containment reading challenged", "rationale": "The registry asserts an action-plane parent while the nav path and domain tags place the model under information/knowledge, and the model's own boundary note says it records the end state and its accountability rather than the plan or its execution. The link is defensible as 'pursued by' or 'served by' but not as containment; it must be re-expressed as a typed relation or re-parented before the record leaves candidate status." }, { "concept": "Empty relationship contract against nine declared sibling dependencies", "disposition": "accepted for a reviewable draft; blocking for specification promotion", "rationale": "The frozen relationship contract is an empty array and the registry lists no contains_ids or aligned_model_ids, yet the whole boundary strategy routes measurement, observation, action, policy, decision, risk, party, access and retention outward to models whose identifiers the service layer itself admits are 'to be assigned'. The structure is readable and reviewable as a draft, but its exclusions are currently unenforceable." }, { "concept": "Function-set gaps: disclosure/embargo change, conformance-check execution, priority declaration, means linkage", "disposition": "recorded, not added (single-provider rule)", "rationale": "Ten functions cover registration through withdrawal, but the disclosure and access authority role decides publication, embargo and redaction with no function to record it after creation; the steward runs conformance checks that produce a serial artifact with no function; and fd-goal-conflict-and-priority and fd-means-and-action-linkage produce declarations no function writes. Under the waiver no functions may be added, so these are logged for the specification stage." }, { "concept": "Optional measurability with mandatory justification", "disposition": "accepted", "rationale": "The adversarial check is sound and evidenced on both sides: EMAS quantifies only where practicable and ESRS provides a fallback where no measurable target exists, while iStar 2.0 demands clear-cut achievement criteria. Making the measure optional but the non-practicability justification mandatory, with a qualitative basis and base period recorded, is the narrowest position the cited sources support." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Live source and version verification hold: all ten source URLs must be re-fetched and their cited pins confirmed before publication, in particular SRC-006 (a live SDG indicator list cited at the 2026 refinement, E/CN.3/2026/12 Annex I), SRC-004 (EFRAG interactive ESRS Set 1 rendering including the 2025-11-10 quick fix), SRC-005 (consolidated Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 applicable from 1 January 2025) and SRC-010 (an undated ISO committee page cited as accessed September 2026). Any URL that no longer returns the cited version invalidates the findings that rest on it.", "Single-provider hold: independent second-provider review is absent by explicit repository-owner authorization (grok waived at 2026-08-29T09:06:27Z after repeated structured-output failures). No cross-provider agreement exists for entry kind, bundles, layers, findings, questions, artifacts or functions; every published artifact must carry a visible single-provider notice and the result remains a reviewable draft, not a validated model.", "Registry-plane hold: the frozen record is status 'candidate' with review_state 'boundary-review-required', and its entry_kind value 'standalone-mm' classifies the registry row rather than the subject model. The published draft must show both axes side by side (record plane 'standalone-mm', subject-model kind 'entity') so no reader treats the registry value as the model's kind.", "Unregistered-boundary hold: the frozen relationship contract is empty and the composition ledger identifiers for the measure, observation, party, policy, decision, risk, access and retention models are unassigned. The model's exclusions of measurement, execution, evaluation, enforcement and disposition are therefore declared but not contractually enforceable, and the draft must say so.", "Source-support hold: before publication, downgrade or re-anchor the SRC-009 (ROS 2) citations on goal identity, status/review and the state-transition function to the standing-commitment sources, and mark the SRC-010-backed goal-level taxonomy and the localisation structure as unsupported pending evidence, so evidence strength is visible at the finding level and not only in the coverage checklist.", "Independent second-provider review was explicitly waived by the repository owner; this Claude-only result remains a reviewable draft." ], "deferredResearch": [ "Retrieve OMG Business Motivation Model 1.3 by alternative PDF text extraction or an authoritative secondary rendering, and test its Goal-versus-Objective distinction against the record-role code adopted here.", "Obtain licensed access to ArchiMate 3.2 motivation elements (Goal, Outcome, Driver, Assessment) that are currently behind an authentication redirect, and record an alignment crosswalk entry with an explicit mapping strength.", "Obtain a licensed copy of ISO 9000:2015 term 3.7.1 ('objective: result to be achieved'), which returned HTTP 403 from the ISO Online Browsing Platform, and use it to replace or confirm the non-primary ISO committee page now supporting the goal-level taxonomy.", "Find a primary source governing authoritative-language and translation equivalence for goal statements (for example the equal-authenticity rules for EU language versions) to close the declared localisation gap.", "Find a primary source that settles milestone ownership between the goal record and the plan/schedule model, so interim commitments and scheduled deliverable events can be separated by evidence rather than by declaration.", "Test target-attribute mandates outside the EU and US instruments cited here (other national performance, sustainability or reporting regimes) to check whether the regional assumptions understate required goal attributes.", "Resolve the registry parent link: determine whether WM-ACT-008 is a containment parent or a typed 'pursued by' relation, given that the nav path places this model under information/knowledge and the boundary notes deny ownership of plan and execution." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 10, "bundles": 6, "layers": 16, "findings": 27, "questions": 99, "artifacts": 12, "functions": 10 } }