# Vercy AI instruction - YAML 1.2 (JSON-compatible) { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "reviewable-draft", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-08-23T21:50:25Z", "synthesisSha256": "028d2a633bcd0786942ca19af92a232a01b997a6ee26cf5484617922452043ac", "providers": [ "Claude", "Grok" ] }, "metaModel": { "id": "WM-ORG-001", "registryId": "vr.wm-org-001", "name": "Organization", "version": "0.3.0-research.1", "previousVersions": [], "entryKind": "entity", "family": "World Models", "category": "Society, people and institutions", "industry": [ "Cross-industry" ], "domain": [ "SOC.ORG.ORG" ], "tags": [ "organization", "soc.org.org" ], "status": "research draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/wm-org-001-organization/", "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-org-001", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.wm-org-001", "model_id": "WM-ORG-001", "name": "Organization", "entry_kind": "entity", "purpose": "Provide the format-neutral context an agent needs to identify, classify, register, operate on and reason about any organization — company, NGO, cooperative, institution, public body, community or informal collective — independently of any storage or interface projection.", "scope_statement": "WM-ORG-001 models the organization as an externally addressable actor: its designations, scheme-qualified identifiers, legal form and activity classification, declared purpose and scale, formation and registry standing, lifecycle and succession, external control/ownership and official representation, physical and electronic presence, and the provenance, quality, access and interoperability governance of the organization record itself. Internal composition (units, teams), person-level records, employment relations and constitutive rule detail are delegated to sibling models. Storage in JSON, YAML, Markdown, Git, MongoDB or exposure over MCP or HTTP are projections of this semantics, never part of it.", "in_scope": [ "Names and designations over time, including language, script and transliteration variants", "Scheme-qualified identifiers (LEI, national registration number, EUID, VAT/tax IDs, DUNS, GLN) and internal canonical keys", "Entity legal form, entity category/subcategory and legal personality", "Activity and sector classification (NACE, ISIC, national schemes) and statistical-unit alignment", "Declared purpose, object clause, non-profit status and scale indicators", "Formation act, registry entries, registration authority and registered standing", "Entity status vs registration status, recurring filing and renewal obligations", "Lifecycle events, succession, continuity and lineage across mergers, divisions and conversions", "External group, ownership, beneficial-ownership and control relationships as endpoints", "Official organizational roles and authorised representation at organization level", "Registered office, operating sites, branches and electronic addresses/channels", "Record provenance, corroboration level, data quality, disclosure classification, retention and standard crosswalks" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Internal organizational units, divisions and departments (WM-ORG-002)", "Teams and operational groupings (WM-ORG-003)", "Natural persons as subjects, including officer and beneficial-owner person records", "Employment, appointment and contractor relations as person-to-organization records", "Full constitutive rule text, bylaws, powers and decision procedures (charter model)", "The public register as an institution, its governance and its own lifecycle", "Financial statements, tax positions, products, services and contracts", "Physical facility, property and premises detail beyond the presence pointer", "Trademark and brand rights over names", "Access-grant issuance and stewardship mechanics (service models)" ], "boundary_notes": [ { "neighbor": "WM-ORG-002 Organizational Unit", "distinction": "W3C ORG separates FormalOrganization (legally recognised, can hold external identifiers and be a party) from OrganizationalUnit, which exists only within a larger organization. Test: if the subject can independently hold a registry entry or a scheme-issued identifier, it belongs here; otherwise it is a unit. Branches are the hard case — a branch may hold its own LEI (EntityCategory BRANCH) yet is not a separate legal person, so it is modelled here as a categorised organization record linked by IS_INTERNATIONAL_BRANCH_OF rather than as an internal unit.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "neighbor": "WM-ORG-003 Team", "distinction": "A team is an operational grouping with no external legal or registry standing and no scheme-qualified identifier. Teams are contained instances, never subjects of registration, standing or succession findings in this model.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "neighbor": "Statistical enterprise / enterprise group", "distinction": "Eurostat's business-register recommendations treat the legal unit and the statistical enterprise as different units: an enterprise may combine several legal units, and enterprise-group boundaries follow control, not legal personality. This model's subject is the organization-as-actor; statistical-unit membership is recorded as a classification alignment, never as identity, and must not be used to merge or split organization records.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-015", "SRC-008" ] }, { "neighbor": "Person / sole proprietor", "distinction": "GLEIF EntityCategory SOLE_PROPRIETOR recognises a business subject whose legal person is a natural person. The natural person remains a separate subject in the person model; this model holds only the business-facing record and the link.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "neighbor": "Public register (register-as-institution)", "distinction": "Registration authorities are themselves organizations and are enumerated in a governed registry (GLEIF RA list, 1,050+ registers, 232 jurisdictions). This model stores a reference to the authority code and the entry, not the register's own model content.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005" ] }, { "neighbor": "Beneficial owner (person) records", "distinction": "BODS separates entity records, person records and relationship records. Only entity records and the organization-side endpoints of relationship records are in scope; person records and their personal data are delegated, because they carry different privacy, access and retention obligations.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] }, { "neighbor": "Site / place / address model", "distinction": "W3C ORG hasSite/hasRegisteredSite point at Site, which is itself a locatable thing. This model holds the presence assertion (kind, validity, role of the location) and references the place model for geometry, building and postal-normalisation detail.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "neighbor": "Fund / sub-fund structures", "distinction": "GLEIF EntityCategory FUND with IS_SUBFUND_OF, IS_FEEDER_TO and IS_FUND-MANAGED_BY shows that fund vehicles are organization-like subjects whose 'control' semantics are management and umbrella membership rather than ownership. They are in scope as categorised organizations but their investment semantics are not modelled here.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003" ] }, { "neighbor": "Unregistered and informal organizations", "distinction": "A large share of organizations (community groups, clubs, unincorporated associations, informal collectives) have no registry entry and no scheme identifier. The registration and standing bundle must therefore be optional, and identity must be able to rest on an adopting-Dimension UUID/ULID. Claiming registry-backed identity for such subjects is a modelling error, not a data gap.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-011" ] } ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "The Organization Ontology", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/", "version_or_date": "W3C Recommendation, 16 January 2014", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Normative vocabulary separating Organization, FormalOrganization, OrganizationalUnit, OrganizationalCollaboration, Site, Membership, Role, Post and ChangeEvent; supplies classification, purpose, identifier, subOrganizationOf, hasSite, hasRegisteredSite, resultedFrom, originalOrganization and changedBy. Anchors the identity, structure and change-event boundaries of this model." }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "Level 1 Data: LEI-CDF Format 3.1", "organization": "Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)", "url": "https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/common-data-file-format/current-versions/level-1-data-lei-cdf-3-1-format", "version_or_date": "LEI-CDF version 3.1, published May 2021", "source_type": "schema", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Defines the reference-data record for a legal entity: LegalName, OtherEntityNames and transliterations, LegalAddress/HeadquartersAddress/OtherAddresses, RegistrationAuthority (RegistrationAuthorityID + RegistrationAuthorityEntityID), LegalJurisdiction, EntityCategory/EntitySubCategory, EntityLegalFormCode/OtherLegalForm, EntityStatus, EntityCreationDate, SuccessorEntity, LegalEntityEvents, and the Registration block (InitialRegistrationDate, LastUpdateDate, RegistrationStatus, NextRenewalDate, ManagingLOU, ValidationSources, ValidationAuthority)." }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "Level 2 Data: Relationship Record (RR) CDF Format 2.1", "organization": "Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)", "url": "https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/common-data-file-format/current-versions/level-2-data-relationship-record-rr-cdf-2-1-format", "version_or_date": "RR-CDF version 2.1, published May 2021", "source_type": "schema", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Normative model for organization-to-organization control links: StartNode/EndNode with NodeIDType, RelationshipType (IS_DIRECTLY_CONSOLIDATED_BY, IS_ULTIMATELY_CONSOLIDATED_BY, IS_INTERNATIONAL_BRANCH_OF, IS_FUND-MANAGED_BY, IS_SUBFUND_OF, IS_FEEDER_TO), three distinct period types, RelationshipStatus, quantifiers, and the eight reporting-exception reasons used when a parent cannot be reported." }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "ISO 20275: Entity Legal Forms Code List", "organization": "Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)", "url": "https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/code-lists/iso-20275-entity-legal-forms-code-list", "version_or_date": "ELF code list version 1.6, February 2026", "source_type": "registry", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Governed four-character alphanumeric legal-form codes covering more than 3,600 legal forms across more than 200 jurisdictions, with native-language and transliterated names, plus the reserved codes 8888 (form not yet listed) and 9999 (no separate legal form). Grounds the legal-form finding and its jurisdiction dependency." }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "GLEIF Registration Authorities List", "organization": "Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)", "url": "https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/code-lists/gleif-registration-authorities-list", "version_or_date": "Version 1.8.1, November 2024", "source_type": "registry", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Enumerates more than 1,050 business registers and validation-authority sources across 232 jurisdictions with register code, international and local register name, organization name, country and website, and defines the register-code + local-entity-number pattern used to cross-reference an organization to its authoritative source." }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "GLEIF Accepted Legal Jurisdictions Code List", "organization": "Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)", "url": "https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/code-lists/gleif-accepted-legal-jurisdictions-code-list", "version_or_date": "Version 1.5", "source_type": "registry", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Constrains the jurisdiction of legal formation to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 by default, with ISO 3166-2 subdivision codes where legal forms exist only at subdivision level. Establishes that jurisdiction is a coded, validated value and that some legal forms are sub-national." }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "ISO 5009: Official Organizational Roles Code List", "organization": "Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)", "url": "https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/code-lists/iso-5009-official-organizational-roles-code-list", "version_or_date": "OOR code list, June 2023", "source_type": "registry", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Six-character codes for over 2,000 official organizational roles across almost 250 legal forms in 89 jurisdictions, tied to the relevant ELF code, restricted to roles appearing in local legislation and explicitly excluding internal functional roles. Separates statutory representation from internal job titles." }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "NACE — statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community", "organization": "Eurostat, European Commission", "url": "https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace", "version_or_date": "NACE Rev. 2.1, adopted October 2022, used for European statistics from 2025", "source_type": "classifier", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Legally grounded activity classification (Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006; Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/137) with a section/division/group/class hierarchy. Establishes that activity codes are versioned, revision-bound and require an explicit scheme version on every assignment." }, { "id": "SRC-009", "title": "International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC)", "organization": "United Nations Statistics Division", "url": "https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/Econ/isic", "version_or_date": "ISIC Rev. 5, endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission at its 54th session, 2023", "source_type": "classifier", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Global reference classification of economic activities maintained by a standing task team, providing the non-EU-anchored counterpart to NACE and the basis for cross-scheme activity crosswalks." }, { "id": "SRC-010", "title": "schema.org Organization", "organization": "Schema.org (W3C Schema.org Community Group)", "url": "https://schema.org/Organization", "version_or_date": "Version 30.0, 2026-03-19", "source_type": "schema", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Widely deployed publication vocabulary confirming the practical identifier surface (legalName, identifier, leiCode, duns, globalLocationNumber, iso6523Code, taxID, vatID, naics, isicV4), lifecycle dates (foundingDate, dissolutionDate, foundingLocation), structure (parentOrganization, subOrganization, department, member/memberOf) and profile fields (nonprofitStatus, numberOfEmployees, ownershipFundingInfo, areaServed)." }, { "id": "SRC-011", "title": "Beneficial Ownership Data Standard — Schema reference", "organization": "Open Ownership / Open Data Services", "url": "https://standard.openownership.org/en/0.4.0/standard/reference.html", "version_or_date": "BODS version 0.4", "source_type": "schema", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Statement-based model for ownership and control: statementId, statementDate (full-date or RFC 3339 date-time), declarationSubject, publicationDetails (publicationDate, bodsVersion, license, publisher), source (type, description, url, retrievedAt, assertedBy), entity records (entityType type/subtype, unspecifiedEntityDetails, identifiers with scheme/schemeName/uri, incorporatedInJurisdiction, foundingDate, dissolutionDate, publicListing, formedByStatute) and relationship records (subject, interestedParty, interests with type, directOrIndirect, beneficialOwnershipOrControl, share ranges, startDate/endDate, componentRecords)." }, { "id": "SRC-012", "title": "ISO 6523 ICD list — Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 code list", "organization": "OpenPeppol AISBL", "url": "https://docs.peppol.eu/poacc/billing/3.0/codelist/ICD/", "version_or_date": "Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, May 2026 release", "source_type": "registry", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Operational instance of the ISO 6523 International Code Designator register showing the scheme-identifier + identifier-value pattern (for example 0060 D-U-N-S, 0088 EAN location code, 0199 LEI, 0208 Belgian enterprise number, 0217 Dutch Chamber of Commerce number). Grounds qualified identifiers and electronic addressing." }, { "id": "SRC-013", "title": "Companies House Public Data API — Company profile resource", "organization": "Companies House (UK Government)", "url": "https://developer-specs.company-information.service.gov.uk/companies-house-public-data-api/resources/companyprofile", "version_or_date": "Public Data API, accessed 2026-08-23", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "A concrete national register data model providing counterexamples to global schemas: a status enumeration (active, dissolved, liquidation, receivership, administration, voluntary-arrangement, converted-closed, insolvency-proceedings, registered, removed, closed, open) plus company_status_detail, date_of_creation/date_of_cessation, sic_codes, previous_company_names, registered_office_is_in_dispute, undeliverable_registered_office_address, external_registration_number, branch_company_details, foreign_company_details, partial_data_available and etag." }, { "id": "SRC-014", "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": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Normative provenance vocabulary (Entity, Activity, Agent, wasGeneratedBy, used, wasDerivedFrom, wasAttributedTo, wasAssociatedWith, actedOnBehalfOf, startedAtTime, endedAtTime, qualified patterns, revision and primary-source derivation) with prov:Organization as an agent subtype. Grounds the assertion-attribution and record-lineage findings." }, { "id": "SRC-015", "title": "Business registers — recommendations manual", "organization": "Eurostat, European Commission", "url": "https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-32-10-216", "version_or_date": "Second edition, 1 March 2010 (KS-32-10-216)", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Explains register practice under Regulation (EC) No 177/2008: the mandatory enterprise group, enterprise and local unit, the requirement to hold legal units and their links to enterprises and groups, the global decision centre concept, and unit demography/continuity. Establishes that legal unit and enterprise are different units and must not be conflated with organization identity." }, { "id": "SRC-016", "title": "Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1042 of 18 June 2021 laying down rules for the application of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards technical specifications and procedures for the system of interconnection of registers", "organization": "European Union (Publications Office / EUR-Lex)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/1042/oj/eng", "version_or_date": "18 June 2021, OJ L 225", "source_type": "legislation", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-23T09:00:00Z", "relevance": "Governs the Business Registers Interconnection System and requires that the structure of the European Unique Identifier (EUID) be compliant with ISO 6523 and that the EUID unequivocally identify companies and branches for information exchange between registers, with standard data-structuring methods and reference-data artefacts such as code lists and controlled vocabularies. Full text could not be rendered by the retrieval tool; the cited provisions were surfaced from EUR-Lex indexed text and are flagged in coverage as requiring verification against the OJ before normative reliance." }, { "id": "SRC-017", "title": "Registered Organization Vocabulary, W3C Working Group Note 01 August 2013", "organization": "World Wide Web Consortium", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-regorg/", "version_or_date": "W3C Working Group Note 01 August 2013; this version http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-vocab-regorg-20130801/", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 2, "accessed_at": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "relevance": "Profile of ORG for organizations that gain legal status by registration. Defines rov:RegisteredOrganization, rov:legalName, rov:registration, rov:orgType, rov:orgStatus, rov:orgActivity and ADMS Identifier handling." }, { "id": "SRC-018", "title": "Level 1 Data: LEI-CDF Format 3.1", "organization": "Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)", "url": "https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/common-data-file-format/lei-cdf-format", "version_or_date": "LEI-CDF format version 3.1, published May 2021; page retrieved 2026-08-24", "source_type": "schema", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "relevance": "Normative Level 1 who-is-who record: legal and other names, legal and headquarters addresses, registration authority, legal jurisdiction, legal form, entity category, entity status, creation date, successor entity, legal entity events, and LEI registration status, validation sources and dates." }, { "id": "SRC-019", "title": "ISO 20275: Entity Legal Forms Code List", "organization": "Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF), as ISO 20275 Maintenance Agency secretariat", "url": "https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/iso-20275-entity-legal-forms-code-list", "version_or_date": "ELF Code List Version 1.6, released February 2026; ISO 20275 first edition 2017-07", "source_type": "classifier", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "relevance": "Four-character ELF codes for 3600+ legal forms in 200+ jurisdictions; reserved codes 8888 and 9999; legal form is jurisdiction-bound and not crosswalked by the standard." }, { "id": "SRC-020", "title": "Core Business Vocabulary", "organization": "SEMIC / Interoperable Europe, European Commission", "url": "https://semiceu.github.io/Core-Business-Vocabulary/releases/2.2.0/", "version_or_date": "Version 2.2.0, SEMIC Recommendation published 2024-05-06", "source_type": "ontology", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "relevance": "Minimum legal-entity properties: legal name, alternative name, legal identifier versus other identifiers, legal form type, legal entity status, activity, registered address, registration date, contact point. Uses ADMS Identifier and locn Address." }, { "id": "SRC-021", "title": "Legal Entity Events (formerly referred to as Corporate Actions) and Data History in the Global LEI System", "organization": "LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee (LEI ROC)", "url": "https://www.leiroc.org/publications/gls/roc_20181030-1.pdf", "version_or_date": "Final policy, 30 October 2018", "source_type": "public-authority", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "relevance": "Policy requiring capture of legal-entity events that change Level 1 data, including name and address changes, mergers and acquisitions, with effective date distinct from recorded date, plus data history for tracing entities through time." }, { "id": "SRC-022", "title": "ISO 17442-1:2020 Financial services — Legal entity identifier (LEI) — Part 1: Assignment", "organization": "International Organization for Standardization", "url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/78829.html", "version_or_date": "ISO 17442-1:2020", "source_type": "standard", "primary_source": true, "authority_tier": 1, "accessed_at": "2026-08-24T00:00:00Z", "relevance": "Defines the 20-character LEI, eligibility of legal entities including unincorporated forms that can enter contracts, and minimum reference data. Operational encoding is taken from GLEIF LEI-CDF 3.1 rather than the paywalled ISO text." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-designation", "name": "Identity and designation", "description": "Everything needed to say which organization is being referred to: its names across time, language and script; its identifiers under external schemes; the canonical key the adopting Dimension uses; and the evidence needed to resolve or reject a candidate match.", "rationale": "W3C ORG models identifier and naming as first-class but under-specified properties; LEI-CDF, the ISO 6523 ICD register and BODS all show that a usable organization identity is a scheme-qualified pair plus temporal name history, not a single string. Duplicate resolution is a distinct concern because LEI registration explicitly carries a DUPLICATE status, proving that identity collisions occur in governed registries.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-010", "SRC-011", "SRC-012" ], "layers": [ { "id": "naming-and-designations", "name": "Naming and designations", "description": "Legal, trading, former, abbreviated and transliterated names of the organization, each with language, script, kind and validity in time.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-010", "SRC-013" ], "findings": [ { "id": "name-forms-and-validity", "name": "Name forms, kinds and validity periods", "description": "An organization carries several simultaneous name forms with different legal weight. LEI-CDF distinguishes LegalName from OtherEntityNames, schema.org separates legalName from name and alternateName, and BODS separates name from alternateNames. Each form needs a kind, a language tag, and an explicit validity interval because names change without changing identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-010", "SRC-011", "SRC-001" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-name-legal", "text": "Which single name form is the legal name in the jurisdiction of formation, and which register or constitutive document evidences it?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "name string", "name kind code (legal, trading, former, abbreviation, transliteration)", "jurisdiction code (ISO 3166-1/-2)", "evidencing register or document reference" ] }, { "id": "q-name-language", "text": "In which languages and scripts is each name form authoritative, and is any Latin transliteration normative or merely convenience?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "BCP 47 language tag", "script code (ISO 15924)", "transliteration flag", "transliteration method or authority" ] }, { "id": "q-name-validity", "text": "Over which interval was each name form valid, and is the interval closed, open-ended or unknown?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "valid-from date or RFC 3339 timestamp", "valid-to date or null", "interval-precision indicator", "source of the interval" ] }, { "id": "q-name-uniqueness", "text": "Is the name form unique within its register, and may two distinct organizations legitimately carry the same string?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "uniqueness scope (register, jurisdiction, none)", "known homonym organization identifiers", "disambiguation note" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "name-value", "name": "Name value", "description": "The literal name string exactly as recorded by the asserting source, without normalisation.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "name-kind", "name": "Name kind", "description": "Coded role of the name form: legal, trading/doing-business-as, former, abbreviation, transliteration or alternate.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "name-language-tag", "name": "Name language tag", "description": "BCP 47 language (and where needed script) tag governing the name string.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "name-validity-interval", "name": "Name validity interval", "description": "Interval during which the name form applied, with open ends permitted and precision declared.", "value_kind": "duration", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-013" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "name-evidence-record", "name": "Name evidence record", "description": "The dated evidence backing a name assertion: a registry extract line, a constitutive document clause or a published notice, retained with its retrieval metadata.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "scanned or native document", "register extract" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Authoritative register document reference where one exists (register code + entry number + document id); otherwise a ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension, never the document date.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-013" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "name-history-and-change", "name": "Name history and change tracking", "description": "Former names must remain retrievable and ordered, because lookups, sanctions screening and lineage tracing rely on historical strings. Companies House exposes previous_company_names as a first-class array and LEI-CDF carries name changes inside LegalEntityEvents; a purely current-state name model loses answerable history.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-013", "SRC-002", "SRC-001" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-namehist-order", "text": "What is the ordered sequence of legal names, and which change event caused each transition?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "ordered list of name values", "effective date of each change", "lifecycle event reference", "gap or overlap flag" ] }, { "id": "q-namehist-identity", "text": "Did any recorded name change coincide with a change of legal identity rather than a mere renaming?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "identity-continuity boolean", "successor or predecessor organization reference", "conversion or merger event reference" ] }, { "id": "q-namehist-observed", "text": "When was each historical name observed or ingested, as distinct from when it became legally effective?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "event time (RFC 3339)", "observation/ingestion time (RFC 3339)", "asserting source identifier" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "former-name-entry", "name": "Former name entry", "description": "A retired name with its effective-from and effective-to dates and the change event that retired it.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "name-change-event-ref", "name": "Name change event reference", "description": "Reference to the lifecycle event record that caused the name transition.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Name history is derived from lifecycle event records and name evidence records already held elsewhere in this model; it is an ordered projection over those artifacts, so materialising a separate artifact would duplicate evidence and create a second place for the same facts to drift." } ] }, { "id": "identifier-schemes-and-keys", "name": "Identifier schemes and canonical keys", "description": "Externally issued, scheme-qualified identifiers for the organization, and the internal canonical key used when no authoritative identifier exists.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-010", "SRC-011", "SRC-012", "SRC-016" ], "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-identifiers", "name": "Scheme-qualified external identifiers", "description": "An organization identifier is meaningless without its scheme. ISO 6523 ICD codes pair a numeric scheme designator with a value (0199 for LEI, 0060 for D-U-N-S, 0208 for the Belgian enterprise number); LEI-CDF pairs RegistrationAuthorityID with RegistrationAuthorityEntityID; BODS requires id plus scheme/schemeName or uri; and the EU EUID must itself be ISO 6523 compliant.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-012", "SRC-002", "SRC-011", "SRC-016", "SRC-005", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-ident-scheme", "text": "Under which governed scheme was each identifier issued, and what is the registered scheme designator for that scheme?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "scheme designator (ISO 6523 ICD code or register code)", "scheme human-readable name", "scheme governing organization", "identifier value" ] }, { "id": "q-ident-authority", "text": "Which authority issued the identifier, and is that authority listed in a governed registration-authority registry?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "registration authority code", "authority name and jurisdiction", "authority listing status", "authority website" ] }, { "id": "q-ident-lifecycle", "text": "Can the identifier be reassigned, retired or superseded, and what happens to references when it is?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "reassignability flag", "retirement or supersession status", "superseding identifier", "effective date of change" ] }, { "id": "q-ident-verification", "text": "How was the identifier verified against its issuing source, and when was that verification last performed?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "verification method", "verification outcome", "verification timestamp (RFC 3339)", "verifying agent" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "identifier-scheme-code", "name": "Identifier scheme code", "description": "Governed designator of the issuing scheme, such as an ISO 6523 ICD code or a GLEIF registration-authority code.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "identifier-value", "name": "Identifier value", "description": "The identifier string exactly as issued, preserving case and any check characters.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-012" ] }, { "id": "identifier-uri", "name": "Identifier resolvable URI", "description": "Dereferenceable URI for the identifier where the scheme publishes one.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "identifier-verified-at", "name": "Identifier verification timestamp", "description": "RFC 3339 timestamp with explicit offset recording when the identifier was last checked against the issuing source.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-014" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "identifier-scheme-catalogue", "name": "Identifier scheme catalogue", "description": "Local catalogue of accepted identifier schemes with designator, governing organization, syntax rule, check-character rule, reassignment policy and resolution endpoint, maintained as a versioned reference list.", "media_or_form": [ "code list", "reference table", "controlled vocabulary" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Scheme designator from the governed upstream register (ISO 6523 ICD code or GLEIF RA code) as the natural key; catalogue releases carry a monotonically increasing version with a release timestamp.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-012", "SRC-005", "SRC-016" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "canonical-key-selection", "name": "Canonical key selection and internal identity", "description": "Because many organizations hold several external identifiers and many hold none, the model must state a deterministic priority for choosing the canonical key: authoritative master-system identifier first, then a governed global identifier or IRI, then a UUID or ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension. Dates, names and addresses are never keys.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-011", "SRC-005", "SRC-016" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-key-priority", "text": "Which identifier is the canonical key for this organization record, and which rule in the identity priority selected it?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "canonical key value", "canonical key scheme", "priority tier applied (master-system, governed global, dimension-assigned)", "selection rationale" ] }, { "id": "q-key-stability", "text": "Under which events may the canonical key change, and how are prior keys kept resolvable?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "key-change trigger events", "prior key values", "alias retention policy", "redirect or tombstone strategy" ] }, { "id": "q-key-unregistered", "text": "If the organization has no external identifier at all, what dimension-assigned identifier is used and who assigned it?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "UUID or ULID value", "assigning dimension namespace", "assignment timestamp (RFC 3339)", "assigning agent" ] }, { "id": "q-key-scope", "text": "Within which namespace is the canonical key unique, and is that namespace globally resolvable?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "namespace URI or prefix", "uniqueness scope", "global resolvability flag" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "canonical-key", "name": "Canonical key", "description": "The single selected identifier used as the record key, carrying its scheme and priority tier.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "key-priority-tier", "name": "Key priority tier", "description": "Coded tier recording whether the key is an authoritative master-system identifier, a governed global identifier/IRI, or a dimension-assigned UUID/ULID.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-016" ] }, { "id": "alias-identifier", "name": "Alias identifier", "description": "Any non-canonical identifier retained so that historical references continue to resolve to this record.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012", "SRC-011" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "The canonical key and its priority tier are pure record metadata carried inline on the organization record; there is no external document to retain, and materialising a key artifact would create an independently mutable copy of the very value that must be immutable." }, { "id": "entity-resolution-and-duplicates", "name": "Entity resolution, matching evidence and duplicates", "description": "Governed registries themselves record duplicates — LEI RegistrationStatus includes DUPLICATE, and Companies House exposes partial_data_available and etag for concurrency. A defensible model therefore records the evidence, method and confidence behind every merge or split rather than asserting a silent match.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-011", "SRC-005" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-match-evidence", "text": "Which attributes and sources were compared to conclude that two candidate records denote the same organization?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "compared attributes", "source identifiers compared", "match method (deterministic key, rule-based, probabilistic, human review)", "match score or confidence band" ] }, { "id": "q-match-decision", "text": "Who decided the merge or split, when, and is the decision reversible?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "deciding agent", "decision timestamp (RFC 3339)", "decision outcome (merge, split, no-match, defer)", "reversibility and rollback reference" ] }, { "id": "q-match-duplicate-status", "text": "Does an upstream register already flag one of the records as a duplicate or annulled registration?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "upstream registration status value", "upstream record identifier", "surviving record identifier", "status observation timestamp" ] }, { "id": "q-match-negative", "text": "Which candidate pairs were explicitly rejected as non-matches, so the same comparison is not repeated?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "rejected pair identifiers", "rejection reason", "rejection timestamp", "review-after date" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "match-confidence", "name": "Match confidence", "description": "Declared confidence in a resolution decision, expressed on a stated scale with the scale identified.", "value_kind": "number", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "resolution-decision", "name": "Resolution decision", "description": "Coded outcome of an entity-resolution comparison, including explicit non-match.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "superseded-record-ref", "name": "Superseded record reference", "description": "Reference to a record retired by a merge, kept resolvable as a tombstone.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "resolution-decision-log", "name": "Entity resolution decision log", "description": "Append-only log of match, non-match, merge and split decisions with compared evidence, method, deciding agent, timestamps and rollback pointers.", "media_or_form": [ "append-only log", "structured decision record" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "ULID per decision entry assigned by the adopting Dimension, ordered by RFC 3339 decision timestamp; entries reference but never reuse the organization canonical key.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-014" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-form-and-purpose", "name": "Classification, legal form and declared purpose", "description": "How the organization is typed by governed code lists (legal form, entity category, activity, statistical unit) and what it declares about its own purpose, non-profit character and scale.", "rationale": "Legal form (ISO 20275), activity (NACE Rev. 2.1, ISIC Rev. 5) and entity category (LEI-CDF) are all governed, versioned, jurisdiction-bound code lists whose assignments carry their own validity and evidence. Eurostat's register manual shows that statistical unit type is a separate classification that must not be confused with identity. Purpose and scale are self-declared and therefore need a different evidence treatment from coded classifications.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-008", "SRC-009", "SRC-002", "SRC-015", "SRC-010" ], "layers": [ { "id": "legal-form-and-category", "name": "Legal form and entity category", "description": "The organization's legal form under its jurisdiction of formation, its entity category and subcategory, and whether it has separate legal personality at all.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-002", "SRC-006", "SRC-013" ], "findings": [ { "id": "entity-legal-form", "name": "Entity legal form assignment", "description": "Legal form is a four-character ELF code valid only in combination with a jurisdiction, drawn from a list of more than 3,600 forms across more than 200 jurisdictions. The reserved codes 8888 (form not yet listed) and 9999 (no separate legal form) make the absence of a form explicitly representable rather than null.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-004", "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-elf-code", "text": "Which ELF code and jurisdiction pair describes the organization's legal form, and which code-list version was used?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "ELF code", "jurisdiction code (ISO 3166-1 or -2)", "ELF list version", "local-language form name" ] }, { "id": "q-elf-absent", "text": "If no listed legal form applies, is the correct representation 8888 (pending listing) or 9999 (no separate legal form), and why?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "reserved code used", "justification text", "free-text legal form as stated locally", "review-after date" ] }, { "id": "q-elf-change", "text": "Has the legal form changed through conversion, and what is the effective date of each form assignment?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "prior ELF code", "conversion event reference", "effective-from date", "effective-to date" ] }, { "id": "q-elf-subnational", "text": "Is the legal form valid only at a sub-national level requiring an ISO 3166-2 jurisdiction code?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "subdivision code", "validity scope", "governing law reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "elf-code", "name": "ELF code", "description": "Four-character ISO 20275 entity legal form code.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "id": "formation-jurisdiction", "name": "Jurisdiction of legal formation", "description": "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, or ISO 3166-2 subdivision code where the legal form exists only at subdivision level.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "other-legal-form-text", "name": "Other legal form text", "description": "Free-text legal form as stated locally, used when no listed ELF code applies.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-004" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "The legal form assignment is a coded reference into an externally governed list; the authoritative artifact is the ELF code list itself, which is maintained upstream and referenced by version rather than copied, and the evidencing constitutive document is already held by the formation-act finding." }, { "id": "entity-category-and-personality", "name": "Entity category, subcategory and legal personality", "description": "LEI-CDF categorises entities as BRANCH, GENERAL, FUND, SOLE_PROPRIETOR, RESIDENT_GOVERNMENT_ENTITY or INTERNATIONAL_ORGANIZATION, with government subcategories. Category determines which other findings are even applicable and whether the subject has separate legal personality — a branch and a sole proprietorship do not.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-013", "SRC-011" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-cat-value", "text": "Which entity category and subcategory apply, and which facts of the record does that category make mandatory or inapplicable?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "entity category code", "entity subcategory code", "dependent-field applicability rules", "category assignment date" ] }, { "id": "q-cat-personality", "text": "Does the organization have separate legal personality, and if not, which legal person bears its rights and obligations?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "legal personality boolean", "bearing legal person reference", "governing law reference" ] }, { "id": "q-cat-informal", "text": "Is the organization unregistered or informal, such that registration, standing and succession findings do not apply?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "registration applicability flag", "informal organization type", "basis of collective existence", "evidence of shared name and continuity" ] }, { "id": "q-cat-public", "text": "Is this a government or international-organization subject whose formation rests on statute or treaty rather than registration?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "public-body indicator", "statute or treaty citation", "formedByStatute flag", "level of government" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "entity-category", "name": "Entity category", "description": "Coded category of the organization subject, controlling applicability of other findings.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "legal-personality-flag", "name": "Separate legal personality flag", "description": "Whether the organization is itself a legal person distinct from its members or parent.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "formed-by-statute", "name": "Formed by statute indicator", "description": "Whether the organization was created by statute or treaty rather than by registration.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Category and personality are coded assertions evaluated against the constitutive act and register record; both evidencing artifacts already exist in the formation and registry-entry findings, and duplicating them here would split the evidence chain." }, { "id": "organization-formality-spectrum", "name": "Organization formality spectrum", "description": "org:Organization is a collection of people with a common purpose that can act as an agent, including informal communities. org:FormalOrganization is recognized in the world at large, especially in legal jurisdictions, with rights and responsibilities (corporation, charity, government, church). rov:RegisteredOrganization / CBV Legal Entity is a formal organization that gained legal status through a registration process and excludes natural persons, virtual organizations and agents that can act without that registration. Many organizations are not legal entities; some umbrellas contain several legal entities. Unregistered collectives remain in scope of this model as Organization, not as RegisteredOrganization.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-020" ], "questions": [ { "id": "organization-formality-spectrum-q01", "text": "Is this subject an informal organization, a formal organization recognized in a jurisdiction, a registered legal entity, or an umbrella that holds several legal entities?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "record: formality_class (informal-organization | formal-organization | registered-legal-entity | umbrella-of-legal-entities), recognized_in_jurisdiction (boolean), registration_required_for_status (boolean)" ] }, { "id": "organization-formality-spectrum-q02", "text": "Can this organization enter contracts and bear legal obligations in its own name, or does another registered entity act for it?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "record: can_contract (boolean), acts_through_registered_organization_id, relationship_type (has-registered-organization | is-legal-entity-for), jurisdiction_code" ] }, { "id": "organization-formality-spectrum-q03", "text": "If the subject is a sole trader or person acting in a business capacity, is the person-as-human modelled elsewhere and only the business capacity kept here?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "record: is_sole_proprietor (boolean), person_subject_id, business-capacity-only (boolean), home_jurisdiction_treatment" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "organization-formality-spectrum-data01", "name": "Formality class", "description": "informal-organization, formal-organization, registered-legal-entity, or umbrella-of-legal-entities.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-020" ] }, { "id": "organization-formality-spectrum-data02", "name": "Can contract", "description": "Whether the subject can enter legal contracts in its own name in the home jurisdiction.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-020" ] }, { "id": "organization-formality-spectrum-data03", "name": "Linked registered legal entity", "description": "Registered organization that acts as legal entity for an informal or umbrella organization.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-020" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "organization-formality-spectrum-artifact01", "name": "Formality classification note", "description": "Assignment of W3C ORG / RegOrg class with jurisdiction evidence; purely definitional when the subject is an unregistered collective with no register extract.", "media_or_form": [ "classification-assignment" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the organization subject, the assigned ORG/RegOrg class and the jurisdiction evidence cited.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-020" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "national-legal-form-vocabulary", "name": "National legal form vocabulary", "description": "Each jurisdiction maintains a limited set of recognized company or entity types (Plc, GmbH, SA, LLP and so on). Lexically identical labels can have different legal meanings across borders. RegOrg orgType and CBV legal form type are SKOS/code list specializations of org:classification. ELF is the cross-border alignment, not a replacement for the national register's form code when that register is the master system.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-019", "SRC-020" ], "questions": [ { "id": "national-legal-form-vocabulary-q01", "text": "What legal-form code and label does the home register use, and how does it map to ELF?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "record: national_scheme, national_code, national_label, language_tag, mapped_elf_code, mapping_confidence, mapping_source" ] }, { "id": "national-legal-form-vocabulary-q02", "text": "Is legal form intrinsic to the subject (affecting powers and identifiers) so it should be modelled as a typed class, or only a taxonomic label?", "kind": "decision", "answer_data": [ "record: modelling_choice (intrinsic-class | taxonomic-classification), affects_identifier_schemes (boolean), affects_powers (boolean), rationale" ] }, { "id": "national-legal-form-vocabulary-q03", "text": "Which similarly named foreign legal forms must not be treated as equivalent to this form?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "array of records: foreign_jurisdiction, foreign_form_label, foreign_elf_code, equivalence (not-equivalent | similar-not-same), note" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "national-legal-form-vocabulary-data01", "name": "National legal form code", "description": "Home-register form code in the national scheme.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-019", "SRC-020" ] }, { "id": "national-legal-form-vocabulary-data02", "name": "National form scheme", "description": "Identifier of the national legal-form concept scheme.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-019", "SRC-020" ] }, { "id": "national-legal-form-vocabulary-data03", "name": "ELF mapping", "description": "Mapping from national form to ELF code with confidence and source.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-019", "SRC-020" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "national-legal-form-vocabulary-artifact01", "name": "National form register field", "description": "Home-register extract field showing the national legal form as recorded at a stated date.", "media_or_form": [ "register-extract" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the register, the national form code recorded and the stated extract date.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-017", "SRC-019", "SRC-020" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "activity-and-statistical-classification", "name": "Activity and statistical classification", "description": "Coded economic-activity assignments under versioned schemes, and the organization's relationship to statistical units used by official registers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-009", "SRC-013", "SRC-015", "SRC-010" ], "findings": [ { "id": "activity-code-assignments", "name": "Activity code assignments across schemes", "description": "Activity classification is scheme-bound and revision-bound: NACE Rev. 2.1 applies to European statistics from 2025 under Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/137, ISIC Rev. 5 was endorsed in 2023, and national registers use their own lists such as UK SIC. An assignment without its scheme version is not interpretable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-009", "SRC-013", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-act-scheme", "text": "Under which classification scheme and revision was each activity code assigned, and at which hierarchy level?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "scheme identifier (NACE, ISIC, national)", "scheme revision", "code value", "hierarchy level (section, division, group, class)" ] }, { "id": "q-act-primary", "text": "Which activity is the principal one, and by what criterion was principality determined?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "primary flag", "determination criterion (turnover, value added, headcount, self-declaration)", "measurement reference period" ] }, { "id": "q-act-authority", "text": "Was the code assigned by the organization, by a register or by a statistical authority, and does that change its weight?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "assigning party", "assignment basis (self-declared, registered, statistical)", "assignment date", "authority reference" ] }, { "id": "q-act-migration", "text": "How are codes from a superseded revision carried forward, and is the mapping one-to-one?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "prior scheme revision and code", "correspondence table reference", "mapping cardinality", "mapping confidence or ambiguity note" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "activity-code", "name": "Activity code", "description": "Code value assigned under a named classification scheme revision.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-009", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "activity-scheme-version", "name": "Activity scheme version", "description": "Identifier of the scheme and revision under which the code was assigned, mandatory whenever a code is present.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] }, { "id": "activity-primary-flag", "name": "Primary activity flag", "description": "Whether this assignment represents the organization's principal activity.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013", "SRC-010" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "activity-correspondence-table", "name": "Activity scheme correspondence table", "description": "Versioned crosswalk between activity schemes and revisions (NACE Rev. 2.1 to ISIC Rev. 5, national scheme to NACE, prior revision to current), recording mapping cardinality and ambiguity.", "media_or_form": [ "correspondence table", "code list mapping" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Composite natural key of source scheme+revision and target scheme+revision as published by the maintaining statistical authority; each local release carries a version and an RFC 3339 publication timestamp.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "statistical-unit-alignment", "name": "Statistical unit alignment", "description": "Official registers hold enterprise group, enterprise and local unit as mandatory statistical units alongside legal units and their links, because an enterprise may span several legal units and group boundaries follow control rather than legal personality. Recording this alignment prevents an agent from silently merging legal units into one organization or splitting an organization to match a statistical unit.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-015", "SRC-008" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-stat-unit-type", "text": "Which statistical unit types is this organization mapped to, and by which statistical authority?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "statistical unit type (legal unit, enterprise, enterprise group, local unit, kind-of-activity unit)", "statistical register identifier", "mapping authority", "mapping reference period" ] }, { "id": "q-stat-unit-span", "text": "Does the mapped enterprise span legal units other than this organization, and which ones?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "co-member legal unit identifiers", "span cardinality", "basis of grouping" ] }, { "id": "q-stat-unit-decision", "text": "Where is the group's global decision centre, and does it differ from this organization's jurisdiction?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "decision-centre organization reference", "decision-centre jurisdiction", "determination basis" ] }, { "id": "q-stat-unit-conflict", "text": "Where the statistical view and the legal view disagree, which is authoritative for a given consumer?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "conflict description", "authoritative view per use case", "resolution rule reference" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "statistical-unit-type", "name": "Statistical unit type", "description": "Coded statistical unit to which this organization is mapped in an official business register.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015" ] }, { "id": "statistical-register-ref", "name": "Statistical register reference", "description": "Identifier of the statistical business register and the unit identifier it assigns.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Statistical unit alignment is an assertion linking this record to units held in an external statistical register; the authoritative artifact is that register's own record, which is not redistributable in most jurisdictions, so only the reference and its provenance are retained." } ] }, { "id": "declared-purpose-and-scale", "name": "Declared purpose and scale", "description": "What the organization states about its own mission, non-profit character and size, and how those self-declarations are dated and evidenced.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010", "SRC-011", "SRC-013" ], "findings": [ { "id": "purpose-and-nonprofit-status", "name": "Declared purpose, object clause and non-profit status", "description": "W3C ORG models purpose as a first-class property and schema.org exposes nonprofitStatus and ownershipFundingInfo. Purpose statements are either constitutive (an object clause in the charter) or self-declared marketing text, and the two carry very different weight; non-profit status is a jurisdiction-granted determination, not a self-description.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010", "SRC-013", "SRC-011" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-purpose-source", "text": "Is this purpose statement a constitutive object clause, a governing-body resolution or self-declared communication?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "purpose source class", "charter or resolution reference", "declaration date", "asserting agent" ] }, { "id": "q-purpose-nonprofit", "text": "Which authority granted the non-profit, charitable or public-benefit status, under which instrument, and is it time-limited?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "status type code", "granting authority", "instrument or ruling reference", "grant date and expiry or review date" ] }, { "id": "q-purpose-restriction", "text": "Does the declared purpose legally restrict what the organization may do, and what is the consequence of acting outside it?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "restriction description", "governing law reference", "consequence of ultra vires action" ] }, { "id": "q-purpose-currency", "text": "When was the purpose statement last reviewed or reaffirmed, and does it still match the registered object clause?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "last review timestamp (RFC 3339)", "divergence from registered clause flag", "reviewing agent" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "purpose-statement-text", "name": "Purpose statement text", "description": "The declared mission or object clause text with its language tag.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "nonprofit-status-code", "name": "Non-profit status code", "description": "Coded charitable, public-benefit or non-profit determination as granted in a named jurisdiction.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "purpose-declared-at", "name": "Purpose declaration timestamp", "description": "RFC 3339 timestamp with offset recording when the purpose statement was declared or reaffirmed.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-014" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "purpose-declaration-record", "name": "Purpose declaration record", "description": "Dated capture of a purpose or status declaration with its text, language, source class, granting instrument reference and retrieval metadata.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "text extract", "official determination letter" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Where a granting authority issues a reference (ruling or registration number), that reference plus authority code is the key; otherwise a ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension with the declaration timestamp held as an attribute, not as the key.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-013", "SRC-014" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "scale-and-workforce-measures", "name": "Scale, workforce and size-class measures", "description": "Size indicators such as headcount are measurements with a method, unit, reference period and source, not static attributes. schema.org exposes numberOfEmployees and statistical registers hold size variables; without a reference period and a counting basis (headcount, full-time equivalent, including or excluding contractors) the figure is not comparable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-015" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-scale-basis", "text": "On what counting basis and for which reference period is each size figure stated?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "counting basis (headcount, FTE, members, volunteers)", "reference period start and end", "inclusion and exclusion rules", "unit of measure" ] }, { "id": "q-scale-source", "text": "Who produced the size figure — the organization, a register, or a third party — and is it audited?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "producing party", "audit or assurance status", "publication reference", "retrieval timestamp (RFC 3339)" ] }, { "id": "q-scale-class", "text": "Which size class does the figure place the organization in, under which jurisdiction's thresholds?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "size class code", "threshold scheme and version", "jurisdiction", "classification date" ] }, { "id": "q-scale-scope", "text": "Does the figure cover this organization alone or a consolidated group, and which entities are included?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "consolidation scope", "included entity identifiers", "exclusion notes" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "workforce-count", "name": "Workforce count", "description": "Numeric size figure with an explicit counting basis and unit.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-015" ] }, { "id": "measurement-reference-period", "name": "Measurement reference period", "description": "The period the figure describes, distinct from when it was reported or ingested.", "value_kind": "duration", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015" ] }, { "id": "size-class-code", "name": "Size class code", "description": "Coded size band under a named jurisdictional threshold scheme.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Size measures are reported values whose evidencing documents (annual accounts, statistical returns) belong to reporting and financial models outside this scope; retaining a separate artifact here would duplicate filings already covered by the recurring-obligations finding." } ] } ] }, { "id": "registration-standing-and-lifecycle", "name": "Formation, registration standing and lifecycle", "description": "How the organization came into existence, where it is recorded, what its current standing is, what recurring obligations keep that standing alive, and how it changes or ends.", "rationale": "LEI-CDF separates EntityStatus from RegistrationStatus, proving that the subject's existence and the record's standing are independent state machines; Companies House adds a twelve-value national status enumeration plus status detail; W3C ORG models ChangeEvent with originalOrganization and resultedFrom for succession; and the EU BRIS regime requires a register-issued identifier for companies and branches. These are distinct, separately answerable concerns.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-001", "SRC-005", "SRC-016" ], "layers": [ { "id": "formation-and-registry-entries", "name": "Formation and registry entries", "description": "The constitutive act that created the organization and the entries that public and private registers hold about it.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-013", "SRC-016", "SRC-011" ], "findings": [ { "id": "formation-act-and-creation-date", "name": "Formation act and creation date", "description": "LEI-CDF records EntityCreationDate as the legal establishment date, schema.org records foundingDate and foundingLocation, BODS records foundingDate and formedByStatute, and Companies House records date_of_creation. Formation date and first registration date are frequently different and must not be conflated.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-010", "SRC-011", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-form-date", "text": "On what date did the organization legally come into existence, and is that the same as its first registration date?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "creation date", "first registration date", "difference explanation", "date precision" ] }, { "id": "q-form-instrument", "text": "Which instrument created the organization — articles, deed, statute, treaty or a founding resolution — and where is it held?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "instrument type", "instrument reference", "holding authority or custodian", "access conditions" ] }, { "id": "q-form-place", "text": "In which jurisdiction and at which location was the organization founded, and does that differ from its current jurisdiction?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "founding jurisdiction code", "founding location", "current jurisdiction code", "seat-transfer event reference" ] }, { "id": "q-form-unknown", "text": "If no formation date is known or the organization predates its register, how is that recorded without fabricating a date?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "unknown-date marker", "earliest evidenced date", "evidence description", "confidence note" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "entity-creation-date", "name": "Entity creation date", "description": "Date on which the organization was legally established, with precision declared.", "value_kind": "date", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-011", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "constitutive-instrument-ref", "name": "Constitutive instrument reference", "description": "Reference to the founding instrument held in the charter model or by a custodian.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "founding-jurisdiction", "name": "Founding jurisdiction", "description": "Jurisdiction under whose law the organization was constituted.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-006" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "formation-evidence-extract", "name": "Formation evidence extract", "description": "Captured evidence of the constitutive act: certificate of incorporation, registration confirmation, statutory instrument citation or founding minutes, with retrieval metadata and a content digest.", "media_or_form": [ "certificate or extract document", "structured record", "statutory citation" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Issuing authority code plus the authority's own document or entry number where issued; otherwise a UUID assigned by the adopting Dimension. The document date is metadata and is never used as the identifier.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-013", "SRC-014" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "registry-entry-and-authority", "name": "Registry entry and registration authority", "description": "An entry links the organization to an authoritative source through a register code plus a local entity number, as in LEI-CDF's RegistrationAuthorityID and RegistrationAuthorityEntityID, drawing on a governed list of more than 1,050 registers across 232 jurisdictions. The EU adds the EUID, which must be ISO 6523 compliant and unequivocally identify companies and branches across interconnected registers.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-002", "SRC-016", "SRC-013", "SRC-012" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-reg-authority", "text": "Which register holds an entry for this organization, and what is its governed register code?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "register code", "register international and local name", "register jurisdiction", "register website or endpoint" ] }, { "id": "q-reg-number", "text": "What entry or registration number does that register assign, and what is its syntax and check rule?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "registration number", "syntax pattern", "check-character rule", "entry date" ] }, { "id": "q-reg-multiplicity", "text": "How many registers hold entries for this organization, and which is authoritative for which fact?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "list of register entries", "fact-to-register authority map", "precedence rule", "conflict handling note" ] }, { "id": "q-reg-branch", "text": "Does the entry describe a branch or a foreign company rather than a domestically constituted organization?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "branch indicator", "parent company registration reference", "parent jurisdiction", "foreign company details" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "register-code", "name": "Register code", "description": "Governed code identifying the registration or validation authority.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "register-entity-number", "name": "Register entity number", "description": "The entity's identification number as maintained by that register.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "register-entry-date", "name": "Register entry date", "description": "Date on which the register accepted the entry.", "value_kind": "date", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "cross-register-identifier", "name": "Cross-register identifier", "description": "Interconnection identifier such as the EU EUID used to address the organization across interconnected registers.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-016", "SRC-012" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "registry-extract", "name": "Registry extract", "description": "A point-in-time extract of the organization's entry in a named register, retained with register code, extract timestamp, requesting agent, licence terms and a content digest.", "media_or_form": [ "register extract document", "structured API response", "certified copy" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Register code plus register entity number plus the extract's RFC 3339 retrieval timestamp as a compound key; where the register issues an extract reference or version tag such as an entity tag, that reference takes priority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-013", "SRC-016" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "home-legal-jurisdiction", "name": "Home legal jurisdiction", "description": "LEI-CDF LegalJurisdiction is the jurisdiction of legal formation and registration and is the jurisdiction on which LegalForm depends. It is an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code or an ISO 3166-2 region code, uppercase. French overseas territories sharing French legal forms are treated as France for legal jurisdiction in the ELF list implementation. Home jurisdiction is not necessarily the headquarters country or the tax residence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-019" ], "questions": [ { "id": "home-legal-jurisdiction-q01", "text": "What is the jurisdiction of legal formation and registration, at country or regional grain?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "record: jurisdiction_code (ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 or ISO 3166-2), grain (country | region), legal_form_depends_on_this (boolean)" ] }, { "id": "home-legal-jurisdiction-q02", "text": "How does the legal jurisdiction differ from headquarters country, tax residence and principal place of business?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "record: legal_jurisdiction, headquarters_country, tax_residence_if_known, principal_place_of_business, divergence_notes" ] }, { "id": "home-legal-jurisdiction-q03", "text": "If the country has multiple regional registers (for example Germany or Spain), which regional register and 3166-2 code is home?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "record: country_code, region_code, register_id, racl_code, notes" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "home-legal-jurisdiction-data01", "name": "Legal jurisdiction code", "description": "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 or ISO 3166-2 code of formation and registration.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-019" ] }, { "id": "home-legal-jurisdiction-data02", "name": "Jurisdiction grain", "description": "country or region.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-019" ] }, { "id": "home-legal-jurisdiction-data03", "name": "Headquarters country", "description": "ISO 3166-1 country of headquarters address, which may differ from legal jurisdiction.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-019" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "home-legal-jurisdiction-artifact01", "name": "Jurisdiction determination note", "description": "Evidence from ELF legal form, register, or LEI record that determines LegalJurisdiction.", "media_or_form": [ "register-extract" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the organization subject, the determined jurisdiction code and the evidence reference relied on.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-019" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "standing-status-and-obligations", "name": "Standing, status and recurring obligations", "description": "The organization's current legal standing, the separate standing of each record about it, and the periodic acts required to keep both current.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-003" ], "findings": [ { "id": "entity-status-vs-registration-status", "name": "Entity status distinguished from record registration status", "description": "LEI-CDF keeps EntityStatus (ACTIVE, INACTIVE, NULL — whether the entity is legally registered and operating) strictly separate from RegistrationStatus (PENDING_VALIDATION, ISSUED, DUPLICATE, LAPSED, RETIRED, ANNULLED, CANCELLED, TRANSFERRED, PENDING_TRANSFER, PENDING_ARCHIVAL — the standing of the record). Companies House adds a twelve-value national enumeration plus company_status_detail. Collapsing these into one status field destroys answerability.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-status-entity", "text": "Is the organization itself currently in existence and operating, and on what date was that last established?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "entity status value", "status effective date", "status observation timestamp (RFC 3339)", "establishing source" ] }, { "id": "q-status-record", "text": "What is the standing of each record about the organization, separately from the organization's own status?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "record registration status value", "status scheme and enumeration", "next action or renewal date", "managing record issuer" ] }, { "id": "q-status-detail", "text": "Where a status is qualified (for example administration, liquidation or struck-off pending), what is the qualifying detail and the governing procedure?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "status detail value", "governing procedure or process reference", "appointed office-holder reference", "procedure start date" ] }, { "id": "q-status-mapping", "text": "How does a national status value map onto the model's normalised status, and what is lost in the mapping?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "source status value and scheme", "normalised status value", "mapping loss note", "mapping table version" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "entity-status", "name": "Entity status", "description": "Whether the organization is legally in existence and operating, coded under a named enumeration.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "record-registration-status", "name": "Record registration status", "description": "Standing of a specific record or registration about the organization, coded under that scheme's enumeration.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "status-detail", "name": "Status detail", "description": "Qualifying detail for a status, such as the insolvency or dissolution procedure in progress.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "status-observed-at", "name": "Status observation timestamp", "description": "RFC 3339 timestamp with explicit offset recording when the status was observed, held separately from the status effective date.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-014" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "status-observation-record", "name": "Status observation record", "description": "Dated observation of a status value from a named source, carrying both the effective date asserted by the source and the observation timestamp, so that stale and conflicting statuses remain distinguishable.", "media_or_form": [ "structured observation record", "time series entry" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Compound key of organization canonical key, status scheme and RFC 3339 observation timestamp; ULID fallback assigned by the adopting Dimension when the source provides no stable observation reference.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-014" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "recurring-obligations-and-renewals", "name": "Recurring filing and renewal obligations", "description": "Standing is maintained by periodic acts: LEI records carry NextRenewalDate and lapse if not renewed, and national registers require confirmation statements and accounts with their own due dates. Missing a due date changes record standing without changing the organization's existence.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-oblig-which", "text": "Which recurring obligations apply to this organization, under which instrument, and at what frequency?", "kind": "requirement", "answer_data": [ "obligation type", "governing instrument reference", "frequency", "responsible authority" ] }, { "id": "q-oblig-due", "text": "What is the next due date for each obligation, and what is the consequence of missing it?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "next due date", "grace period", "consequence code (lapse, strike-off, penalty)", "last fulfilment date" ] }, { "id": "q-oblig-evidence", "text": "What evidence shows an obligation was fulfilled, and where is that evidence retrievable?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "filing reference", "filing date", "filing document reference", "retrieval endpoint or custodian" ] }, { "id": "q-oblig-exempt", "text": "Is the organization exempt from an otherwise applicable obligation, and on what recorded basis?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "exemption type", "exemption basis and instrument", "exemption validity period", "approving authority" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "obligation-type", "name": "Obligation type", "description": "Coded recurring obligation such as record renewal, confirmation statement or annual accounts filing.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "next-due-date", "name": "Next due date", "description": "Date by which the next fulfilment of the obligation is required.", "value_kind": "date", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "last-fulfilment-reference", "name": "Last fulfilment reference", "description": "Reference to the most recent filing or renewal that satisfied the obligation.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "obligation-schedule", "name": "Obligation schedule", "description": "Derived but persisted schedule of applicable obligations with authority, frequency, due dates, grace periods, fulfilment references and consequence codes, used to drive monitoring.", "media_or_form": [ "schedule record", "structured calendar" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Compound key of organization canonical key, obligation type code and obligation period; schedule revisions are versioned with RFC 3339 generation timestamps rather than being overwritten.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "lifecycle-events-and-succession", "name": "Lifecycle events and succession", "description": "Discrete events that change the organization or its record, and the lineage links that connect predecessor and successor organizations.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-014" ], "findings": [ { "id": "lifecycle-event-records", "name": "Lifecycle event records", "description": "LEI-CDF v3.1 introduced LegalEntityEvents as a container carrying event type, dates, validation documents and the fields affected. W3C ORG models ChangeEvent linked by changedBy and resultedFrom. An event record must separate the date the event legally took effect from the date it was recorded and the date it was observed.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-014", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-event-type", "text": "What type of lifecycle event occurred, and which fields of the organization record does it affect?", "kind": "event", "answer_data": [ "event type code", "affected field list", "event scheme and version", "narrative description" ] }, { "id": "q-event-times", "text": "What are the event's effective date, its recorded date at the authority, and the observation time in this system?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "effective date", "authority recording date", "observation timestamp (RFC 3339 with offset)", "time-zone or offset source" ] }, { "id": "q-event-evidence", "text": "Which validation documents evidence the event, and who validated them?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "validation document references", "validating agent or authority", "validation outcome", "validation timestamp" ] }, { "id": "q-event-status", "text": "Is the event completed, in progress or withdrawn, and can it be superseded by a later correction?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "event status code", "supersession reference", "correction reason", "corrected-at timestamp" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "event-type-code", "name": "Lifecycle event type code", "description": "Coded event type such as name change, legal form conversion, seat transfer, merger, division, dissolution or status change.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "event-effective-date", "name": "Event effective date", "description": "Date on which the event took legal effect, distinct from its recording and observation times.", "value_kind": "date", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "event-observed-at", "name": "Event observation timestamp", "description": "RFC 3339 timestamp with explicit offset recording when this system learned of the event.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "1", "required": true, "source_refs": [ "SRC-014", "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "event-affected-fields", "name": "Affected fields", "description": "List of record fields whose values the event changes.", "value_kind": "collection", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "lifecycle-event-journal", "name": "Lifecycle event journal", "description": "Append-only journal of lifecycle events with type, three distinct timestamps, affected fields, validation document references, asserting agent and supersession links.", "media_or_form": [ "append-only journal", "event log", "structured event record" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authority-issued event or filing reference where available (register code plus filing number); otherwise a ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension. Journal entries are ordered by RFC 3339 observation timestamp and never rekeyed.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-014", "SRC-013" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "succession-and-continuity", "name": "Succession, continuity and lineage", "description": "W3C ORG treats an organization resulting from a change event as sufficiently distinct to have its own identity, linked to originalOrganization; LEI-CDF carries SuccessorEntity with SuccessorLEI or SuccessorEntityName; Eurostat register practice defines continuity rules for unit births and deaths. The hard question is when a change preserves identity and when it creates a new subject.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-015", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-succ-continuity", "text": "Did this change preserve the organization's identity, or did it terminate one subject and create another?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "continuity decision", "continuity rule applied", "rule source reference", "deciding agent and timestamp" ] }, { "id": "q-succ-links", "text": "Which organizations are predecessors and which are successors, and what is the cardinality of the transition?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "predecessor identifiers", "successor identifiers", "transition cardinality (merge, split, absorption, conversion)", "effective date" ] }, { "id": "q-succ-unnamed", "text": "If a successor exists but has no identifier, how is it recorded without inventing one?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "successor name string", "identifier-absent marker", "expected identifier scheme", "follow-up review date" ] }, { "id": "q-succ-carryover", "text": "Which identifiers, registrations, obligations and relationships transfer to the successor and which lapse?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "carried-over identifier list", "lapsed identifier list", "transferred obligation list", "legal basis for transfer" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "successor-reference", "name": "Successor reference", "description": "Identifier of a successor organization, or its name where no identifier exists.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "predecessor-reference", "name": "Predecessor reference", "description": "Identifier of a predecessor organization from which this subject resulted.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "continuity-decision", "name": "Continuity decision", "description": "Coded determination of whether identity was preserved across the transition, with the rule applied.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015", "SRC-001" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "lineage-graph-record", "name": "Lineage graph record", "description": "Persisted predecessor/successor edge set with transition cardinality, effective dates, continuity decisions and the rule versions applied, enabling a lineage view without recomputation.", "media_or_form": [ "graph edge set", "structured lineage record" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Edges keyed by the pair of organization canonical keys plus the lifecycle event reference that created the edge; a dimension-assigned ULID is used only when the causing event has no authority reference.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-015" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "dissolution-and-expiry", "name": "Dissolution and expiry", "description": "An organization ceases as a subject by dissolution, completion of winding-up, or replacement through corporate action. schema.org dissolutionDate is a secondary discovery field. LEI RETIRED means the entity ceased without merger; INACTIVE covers closure, acquisition or illegitimacy. Identifier records are not reused. History remains queryable after cessation. Deletion of the subject record is a retention decision, not an automatic consequence of dissolution.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-021", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "dissolution-and-expiry-q01", "text": "Has the organization ceased, on what effective datetime, under which reason, and is winding-up still in progress?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "record: ceased (boolean), dissolution_datetime, reason (dissolved | merged | illegitimate | other), winding_up_in_progress (boolean), evidence_ref" ] }, { "id": "dissolution-and-expiry-q02", "text": "Which identifiers remain the correct historical keys after cessation, and which must not be reassigned or reused for a new entity?", "kind": "identity", "answer_data": [ "array of records: scheme_id, notation, reusable (false), surviving_search_key (boolean), successor_identifier_if_any" ] }, { "id": "dissolution-and-expiry-q03", "text": "How long must the dissolved organization's identity and lineage remain available for resolution and audit, and who is the residual steward?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "record: retain_until, retain_indefinitely (boolean), residual_steward_id, legal_hold (boolean), deletion_eligible_from" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "dissolution-and-expiry-data01", "name": "Dissolution datetime", "description": "Effective cessation datetime in RFC 3339, with precision if the source is date-only.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-021", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "dissolution-and-expiry-data02", "name": "Cessation reason", "description": "dissolved, merged, illegitimate, or other, aligned to LEI expiration reasons where applicable.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-021", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "dissolution-and-expiry-data03", "name": "Retain until", "description": "Earliest datetime at which deletion of the subject record may be considered, if ever.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-021", "SRC-010" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "dissolution-and-expiry-artifact01", "name": "Dissolution or striking-off instrument", "description": "Official notice, court order or register marking that the entity ceased, including reason and effective date.", "media_or_form": [ "register-extract" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the issuing authority, the instrument or case reference and the effective cessation date.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-021", "SRC-010" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] }, { "id": "control-ownership-and-representation", "name": "Control, ownership and representation", "description": "External relationships that determine who controls the organization, who owns or benefits from it, and who may act for it.", "rationale": "RR-CDF defines a normative, period-bounded and quantified model of consolidation and fund relationships with explicit reporting exceptions; BODS defines a statement-based model of ownership and control interests with direct/indirect and share ranges; ISO 5009 supplies codes for official roles tied to legal forms and explicitly excludes internal functional titles. Together they establish that control, ownership and representation are three distinct relationship families with different evidence regimes.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-011", "SRC-007", "SRC-002" ], "layers": [ { "id": "group-structure-and-ownership", "name": "Group structure and ownership", "description": "Consolidation and group membership links, and ownership or control interests including beneficial ownership.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-011", "SRC-015", "SRC-010" ], "findings": [ { "id": "consolidation-and-group-links", "name": "Consolidation, branch and fund relationship links", "description": "RR-CDF records IS_DIRECTLY_CONSOLIDATED_BY, IS_ULTIMATELY_CONSOLIDATED_BY, IS_INTERNATIONAL_BRANCH_OF, IS_FUND-MANAGED_BY, IS_SUBFUND_OF and IS_FEEDER_TO, each with up to three distinct period types, a status, quantifiers with a measurement method, and eight exception reasons for when a parent cannot be reported.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-002", "SRC-015" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-group-type", "text": "Which relationship type connects this organization to the other party, and in which direction?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "relationship type code", "start node identifier and type", "end node identifier and type", "direction semantics" ] }, { "id": "q-group-periods", "text": "Which distinct periods apply — relationship validity, accounting period and document filing period — and do they differ?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "relationship period start and end", "accounting period start and end", "document filing period start and end", "period type codes" ] }, { "id": "q-group-quantifier", "text": "What quantified measure describes the relationship, and by which measurement method and unit?", "kind": "measurement", "answer_data": [ "quantifier amount", "measurement method", "quantifier units", "measurement date" ] }, { "id": "q-group-exception", "text": "If no parent can be reported, which exception reason applies and when will it be reviewed?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "exception reason code", "exception category", "exception recorded date", "review-after date" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "relationship-type-code", "name": "Relationship type code", "description": "Coded organization-to-organization relationship such as direct or ultimate consolidation, branch, fund management, sub-fund or feeder.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "relationship-period", "name": "Relationship period", "description": "A typed interval qualifying the relationship, with the period type declared.", "value_kind": "duration", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "relationship-quantifier", "name": "Relationship quantifier", "description": "Quantified measure of the relationship with its measurement method and unit.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "reporting-exception-reason", "name": "Reporting exception reason", "description": "Coded reason a required parent relationship is not reported.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "relationship-record", "name": "Organization relationship record", "description": "A standalone relationship record carrying both endpoints, type, typed periods, status, quantifiers, validation sources and documents, and its own registration metadata — modelled separately from either endpoint's record.", "media_or_form": [ "structured relationship record", "graph edge with attributes" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Compound natural key of start node identifier, end node identifier and relationship type, versioned by RFC 3339 last-update timestamp; where the issuing organization assigns a relationship reference, that reference takes priority.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-002" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "ownership-and-beneficial-ownership", "name": "Ownership and beneficial-ownership interests", "description": "BODS models ownership and control as relationship records with a subject entity, an interested party, and an array of interests each carrying type, directOrIndirect, a beneficialOwnershipOrControl flag valid only for natural persons, share values expressible as exact figures or as minimum/maximum ranges, and start and end dates. Indirect chains are represented through component records rather than collapsed edges.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-010", "SRC-003" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-own-interest", "text": "What type of interest does the interested party hold, in what amount or range, and is it held directly or indirectly?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "interest type code", "direct/indirect/unknown value", "share exact value or minimum and maximum bounds", "interest start and end dates" ] }, { "id": "q-own-beneficial", "text": "Is this interest asserted as beneficial ownership or control by a natural person, and under which jurisdiction's threshold?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "beneficial ownership flag", "natural person record reference", "applicable threshold and jurisdiction", "threshold instrument reference" ] }, { "id": "q-own-unknown", "text": "Where the interested party is unknown or unspecified, what reason is recorded and what is the follow-up?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "unspecified reason code", "reason description", "expected resolution route", "review-after date" ] }, { "id": "q-own-chain", "text": "For an indirect interest, which component records describe each step of the ownership chain?", "kind": "composition", "answer_data": [ "component record identifiers", "chain order", "per-step interest types", "chain completeness flag" ] }, { "id": "q-own-declaration", "text": "Who asserted this ownership statement, on what date, from which source type, and under what licence is it published?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "asserting party", "statement date (RFC 3339 or full date)", "source type (self-declaration, official register, third party, verified)", "publication licence URI" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "interest-type", "name": "Interest type", "description": "Coded kind of ownership or control interest, such as shareholding, voting rights or right to appoint directors.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "interest-share", "name": "Interest share", "description": "Share of the interest expressed as an exact percentage or as a bounded range with inclusive or exclusive limits.", "value_kind": "quantity", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "interested-party-ref", "name": "Interested party reference", "description": "Reference to the person or organization holding the interest, or an explicit unspecified-party marker.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "statement-date", "name": "Statement date", "description": "Date or RFC 3339 date-time at which the ownership statement was made, distinct from the interest start date.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "ownership-statement-set", "name": "Ownership statement set", "description": "A published set of ownership and control statements about the organization, carrying publication details (publication date, standard version, licence, publisher) and per-statement source metadata including retrieval time and asserting party.", "media_or_form": [ "statement collection", "structured declaration", "published dataset" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Statement identifiers assigned by the publisher, recommended as ULIDs, retained verbatim; the set is keyed by publisher identifier plus publication date, and statements are never re-keyed on ingestion.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "official-roles-and-affiliation", "name": "Official roles, representation and affiliation", "description": "Who is empowered to act for the organization under law, and which external bodies the organization is affiliated with or accredited by.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-001", "SRC-010", "SRC-013" ], "findings": [ { "id": "official-roles-and-representation", "name": "Official organizational roles and authorised representation", "description": "ISO 5009 codes cover over 2,000 official roles across almost 250 legal forms in 89 jurisdictions, are tied to the relevant ELF code, include only roles appearing in local legislation, and explicitly exclude internal functional titles such as Chief Risk Officer. W3C ORG separates Role, Post and Membership. This finding covers the organization-side view: which posts exist and what they authorise, not the persons filling them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-001", "SRC-013", "SRC-004" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-role-code", "text": "Which official organizational roles exist for this organization's legal form, and what are their governed codes?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "official role code", "role local-language name", "associated ELF code", "jurisdiction" ] }, { "id": "q-role-power", "text": "What may a holder of each role bind the organization to, and are there joint-signature or threshold constraints?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "representation power description", "joint or sole signing rule", "monetary or subject-matter limits", "governing instrument reference" ] }, { "id": "q-role-currency", "text": "Is the appointment currently in force, and what are its start and end dates as recorded by the authority?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "appointment start date", "appointment end date", "current-in-force flag", "recording authority" ] }, { "id": "q-role-internal", "text": "Is a claimed title an official role under local legislation or an internal functional title with no statutory effect?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "official-vs-internal determination", "code list lookup result", "evidence reference", "determination timestamp" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "official-role-code", "name": "Official organizational role code", "description": "Six-character governed code for an official role, valid in combination with a legal form and jurisdiction.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] }, { "id": "representation-power", "name": "Representation power", "description": "Description of what a role holder may bind the organization to, including joint-signature rules.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "appointment-interval", "name": "Appointment interval", "description": "Start and end of an appointment to an official role, as recorded by the competent authority.", "value_kind": "duration", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013", "SRC-001" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "representation-authority-record", "name": "Representation authority record", "description": "Record of who may represent the organization, linking an official role code, the appointed party reference held in the person model, the authorising instrument and the appointment interval, with personal data minimised to a reference.", "media_or_form": [ "structured record", "register extract", "power of attorney reference" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Authority-issued appointment or officer reference plus register code where available; otherwise a UUID assigned by the adopting Dimension. Person names are never used as keys.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-007", "SRC-013", "SRC-001" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "external-affiliation-and-accreditation", "name": "External affiliation, membership and accreditation", "description": "Organizations belong to federations, chambers, standards bodies and networks, and hold accreditations or certifications granted by external bodies. W3C ORG models Membership as an n-ary relation between agent, organization and role; schema.org exposes memberOf and hasCredential. These links are neither ownership nor control and must not be conflated with them.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-affil-body", "text": "Which external body is the organization affiliated with or accredited by, and what is that body's own identifier?", "kind": "relationship", "answer_data": [ "affiliating body identifier and scheme", "affiliation or accreditation type", "relationship direction", "jurisdictional scope" ] }, { "id": "q-affil-effect", "text": "What rights, obligations or claims does the affiliation confer, and is it publicly verifiable?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "conferred rights and obligations", "public verification endpoint", "claim wording permitted", "verification method" ] }, { "id": "q-affil-validity", "text": "Over which period is the affiliation or accreditation valid, and what triggers its lapse or withdrawal?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "validity start and end dates", "renewal requirement", "lapse or withdrawal triggers", "last verification timestamp" ] }, { "id": "q-affil-distinct", "text": "Is this link genuinely non-controlling, or does it in substance confer control that belongs in the ownership layer?", "kind": "constraint", "answer_data": [ "control assessment outcome", "assessment criteria applied", "reclassification decision", "deciding agent" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "affiliation-type", "name": "Affiliation type", "description": "Coded kind of external link such as association membership, accreditation, certification or network participation.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "affiliating-body-ref", "name": "Affiliating body reference", "description": "Scheme-qualified identifier of the external body conferring the affiliation.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "affiliation-validity", "name": "Affiliation validity interval", "description": "Period over which the affiliation or accreditation is valid.", "value_kind": "duration", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Affiliation and accreditation evidence is issued and published by the conferring body, which is a separate organization subject; this model retains only the scheme-qualified link, validity and verification endpoint, because copying certificates would create an unmaintained duplicate of another party's authoritative record." } ] } ] }, { "id": "presence-and-reachability", "name": "Presence and reachability", "description": "Where the organization is legally seated, where it actually operates, and through which electronic addresses and channels it can be reached.", "rationale": "LEI-CDF distinguishes LegalAddress from HeadquartersAddress and OtherAddresses with transliterated variants; W3C ORG separates hasRegisteredSite from hasSite; Companies House exposes registered_office_is_in_dispute and undeliverable_registered_office_address, proving that a registered address is a legal construct that can be contested or non-functional; and Peppol shows that electronic addressing uses the same scheme-qualified pattern as identity.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-013", "SRC-012" ], "layers": [ { "id": "locations-sites-and-channels", "name": "Locations, sites and channels", "description": "Registered and operating locations of the organization together with its electronic addresses and public channels, each with a role, validity and reachability status.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-013", "SRC-012", "SRC-010" ], "findings": [ { "id": "registered-office-and-legal-address", "name": "Registered office and legal address", "description": "The registered office is the address at which the organization is legally addressable in its jurisdiction of formation; it is frequently not an operating location and may be a service-provider address. National registers record when it is in dispute or undeliverable, which are distinct states from being absent.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-office-role", "text": "Which address is the registered or legal address, as distinct from the headquarters and other addresses?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "address role code", "structured address components", "country and subdivision codes", "source register reference" ] }, { "id": "q-office-dispute", "text": "Is the registered address disputed, undeliverable or served by a third-party provider, and since when?", "kind": "state", "answer_data": [ "dispute flag", "undeliverable flag", "service-provider indicator", "state effective date" ] }, { "id": "q-office-change", "text": "When did the registered address last change, and which lifecycle event and filing recorded the change?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "prior address", "change effective date", "lifecycle event reference", "filing reference" ] }, { "id": "q-office-script", "text": "In which language and script is the address authoritative, and is a transliterated form required for interchange?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "address language tag", "script code", "transliterated address form", "transliteration source" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "address-role", "name": "Address role", "description": "Coded role of an address such as legal/registered, headquarters, service or other.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "structured-address", "name": "Structured address", "description": "Address components with country and subdivision codes, retained in the source language and script.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "address-condition-flag", "name": "Address condition flag", "description": "Coded condition such as in dispute, undeliverable or provider-served.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Registered address values are carried inline on the organization record and evidenced by the registry extract artifact already retained by the registry-entry finding; geometry, building identity and postal normalisation belong to the referenced place model rather than to a duplicated artifact here." }, { "id": "operating-sites-and-branches", "name": "Operating sites, branches and service areas", "description": "W3C ORG models Site as a place where an organization operates and separates hasSite from hasRegisteredSite. Operating presence is distinct from legal seat: a branch may be separately registered and separately identified, while a site may be purely operational with no registry footprint at all.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-site-kind", "text": "What kind of presence is this — registered branch, operating site, local unit or service point — and is it separately registered?", "kind": "classification", "answer_data": [ "site kind code", "separate registration flag", "branch registration reference", "statistical local-unit reference" ] }, { "id": "q-site-validity", "text": "Over which period was the site active, and what evidences its opening and closing?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "site active-from and active-to dates", "opening evidence reference", "closing evidence reference", "observation timestamp" ] }, { "id": "q-site-area", "text": "Which geographic areas does the organization serve from this site, and at what granularity is that recorded?", "kind": "spatial", "answer_data": [ "served area identifiers", "granularity level", "area code scheme", "exclusions" ] }, { "id": "q-site-link", "text": "Which place or facility record does this site resolve to, and who maintains that record?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "place model reference", "maintaining party", "resolution endpoint", "last reconciliation timestamp" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "site-kind", "name": "Site kind", "description": "Coded kind of operating presence.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "site-place-ref", "name": "Site place reference", "description": "Reference into the place or facility model where the site's spatial detail is held.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "id": "served-area", "name": "Served area", "description": "Coded geographic area served, at a declared granularity.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "site-register", "name": "Organization site register", "description": "Maintained list of the organization's sites and branches with kind, place reference, separate-registration status, validity interval and evidence references.", "media_or_form": [ "structured list", "register record" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Branch registration number plus register code where the site is separately registered; otherwise a UUID assigned by the adopting Dimension. Addresses are never used as site keys because they are not unique or stable.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-013", "SRC-005" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "electronic-addresses-and-channels", "name": "Electronic addresses and public channels", "description": "Electronic business addressing uses the same scheme-qualified pattern as identity: a Peppol participant is addressed as an ISO 6523 scheme designator plus a value, for example 0199 with an LEI or 0208 with a Belgian enterprise number. Public channels such as websites and published contact points are separate, weaker assertions that require their own verification.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-012", "SRC-010", "SRC-002" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-echan-scheme", "text": "Under which electronic addressing scheme is the organization reachable, and what is the scheme-qualified address?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "electronic address scheme designator", "address value", "network or protocol", "registration status in that network" ] }, { "id": "q-echan-verify", "text": "How was each channel verified as belonging to this organization, and when?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "verification method", "verifying agent", "verification timestamp (RFC 3339)", "verification outcome" ] }, { "id": "q-echan-purpose", "text": "What is each channel authorised for — legal service, invoicing, general enquiry or public communication?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "channel purpose code", "authorising instrument or policy", "legal-service validity flag", "restriction notes" ] }, { "id": "q-echan-retire", "text": "Which channels are retired, and are prior references redirected or tombstoned?", "kind": "lifecycle", "answer_data": [ "retired channel value", "retirement date", "replacement channel", "redirect or tombstone policy" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "electronic-address-scheme", "name": "Electronic address scheme", "description": "Governed designator of the electronic addressing scheme, such as an ISO 6523 ICD code used in a business network.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012" ] }, { "id": "electronic-address-value", "name": "Electronic address value", "description": "The address value under the named scheme.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012" ] }, { "id": "public-channel-uri", "name": "Public channel URI", "description": "URI of a public channel such as a website or published contact endpoint.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "channel-verified-at", "name": "Channel verification timestamp", "description": "RFC 3339 timestamp with explicit offset for the most recent channel verification.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-014" ] } ], "artifacts": [], "inline_only_rationale": "Electronic addresses are scheme-qualified inline values whose authoritative artifact is the network's own participant registry, queried by resolution rather than copied; retaining a local artifact would produce stale routing data with no way to detect divergence." } ] } ] }, { "id": "record-governance-and-interoperability", "name": "Record governance and interoperability", "description": "Governance of the organization record itself: where each assertion came from, how well corroborated it is, who may see it, how long it is kept, and how it maps onto external standards.", "rationale": "LEI-CDF records ValidationSources with graded corroboration levels and a ValidationAuthority, PROV-O supplies the normative vocabulary for attributing assertions to agents and deriving records from sources, BODS requires per-statement source and publication metadata including licence, and national registers expose concurrency and completeness markers. Standard alignment must be recorded as mapping with declared loss, not as conformance.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-014", "SRC-011", "SRC-013", "SRC-001", "SRC-010" ], "layers": [ { "id": "provenance-quality-and-access", "name": "Provenance, quality, access and retention", "description": "Per-assertion provenance and corroboration, data-quality assessment, disclosure classification and retention rules for the organization record.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-014", "SRC-011", "SRC-013" ], "findings": [ { "id": "assertion-provenance-and-attribution", "name": "Assertion provenance and attribution", "description": "Every field value is an assertion by some agent from some source at some time. PROV-O supplies wasAttributedTo, wasDerivedFrom, wasGeneratedBy and actedOnBehalfOf with prov:Organization as an agent type; BODS requires source type, url, retrievedAt and assertedBy on each statement. Event time and observation time must be recorded separately.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-014", "SRC-011", "SRC-002" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-prov-source", "text": "From which source was each assertion derived, of what source type, and under what licence may it be reused?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "source identifier and URL", "source type (official register, self-declaration, third party, verified)", "licence URI", "retrieval timestamp (RFC 3339 with offset)" ] }, { "id": "q-prov-agent", "text": "Which agent asserted the value, and on whose behalf were they acting?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "asserting agent identifier", "agent type (person, organization, software)", "delegating party", "assertion timestamp" ] }, { "id": "q-prov-derivation", "text": "Was the value copied, transformed or inferred, and from which prior version was it derived?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "derivation type (copy, revision, transformation, inference)", "prior version reference", "transforming activity reference", "transformation rule version" ] }, { "id": "q-prov-times", "text": "Are event time and observation/ingestion time recorded separately for this assertion, and with what precision?", "kind": "temporal", "answer_data": [ "event time (RFC 3339)", "observation time (RFC 3339)", "precision indicator", "clock or offset source" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "assertion-source-ref", "name": "Assertion source reference", "description": "Identifier and URL of the source from which an assertion was taken, with its source type.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-014" ] }, { "id": "asserting-agent", "name": "Asserting agent", "description": "Agent that made the assertion, typed as person, organization or software agent.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-014", "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "retrieved-at", "name": "Retrieval timestamp", "description": "RFC 3339 timestamp with explicit offset recording when the source was retrieved, distinct from any date asserted by the source.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-014" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "provenance-graph", "name": "Record provenance graph", "description": "Graph of entities, activities and agents describing how each version of the organization record was generated, derived and attributed, using qualified provenance where circumstances matter.", "media_or_form": [ "provenance graph", "structured lineage record", "append-only log" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Each provenance node keyed by a dereferenceable IRI within the adopting Dimension namespace; activity nodes carry RFC 3339 start and end times as attributes and are never keyed by time.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-014", "SRC-011" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "validation-corroboration-and-quality", "name": "Validation, corroboration level and data quality", "description": "LEI-CDF grades a record's corroboration as PENDING, ENTITY_SUPPLIED_ONLY, PARTIALLY_CORROBORATED or FULLY_CORROBORATED against a named ValidationAuthority, and RR-CDF carries validation sources, documents and references. Companies House marks partial_data_available and exposes an entity tag for concurrency. Quality is therefore a declared, evidenced grade rather than an assumed property.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-val-level", "text": "What corroboration level applies to this record, and against which validation authority and documents was it established?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "corroboration level value", "validation authority reference", "validation document references", "validation date" ] }, { "id": "q-val-staleness", "text": "How stale is each value relative to its source's own update cadence, and when must it be refreshed?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "last update timestamp", "source update cadence", "staleness threshold", "next refresh date" ] }, { "id": "q-val-completeness", "text": "Which required fields are absent or only partially available, and is that a source limitation or an ingestion gap?", "kind": "quality", "answer_data": [ "missing field list", "partial-data indicator", "cause classification", "remediation owner" ] }, { "id": "q-val-concurrency", "text": "What version or entity tag did the source return, and how are lost updates prevented on write-back?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "source version tag", "local record version", "concurrency strategy", "conflict outcome" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "corroboration-level", "name": "Corroboration level", "description": "Graded level of corroboration of the record against authoritative sources.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "validation-authority-ref", "name": "Validation authority reference", "description": "Reference to the authority whose source was used to corroborate the record.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] }, { "id": "record-version-tag", "name": "Record version tag", "description": "Opaque version or entity tag used for optimistic concurrency against a source or consumer.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "last-update-timestamp", "name": "Last update timestamp", "description": "RFC 3339 timestamp with explicit offset for the most recent change to the record.", "value_kind": "timestamp", "cardinality": "0..1", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "data-quality-assessment", "name": "Data quality assessment", "description": "Periodic assessment of the organization record against declared quality criteria, recording corroboration level, completeness, staleness, detected conflicts and remediation actions with owners and due dates.", "media_or_form": [ "assessment report", "structured scorecard" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Compound key of organization canonical key and assessment period identifier, with a ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension per assessment run; the run timestamp is an attribute, not the key.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-003", "SRC-013" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "disclosure-access-and-retention", "name": "Disclosure classification, access and retention", "description": "Organization records mix data that registers publish freely, data that is licensed, and data that identifies natural persons and therefore carries privacy obligations. BODS requires an explicit licence on publication; national registers operate protected-address and secure-officer regimes; and retention must be decided per class rather than for the record as a whole.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-013", "SRC-016", "SRC-002" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-disc-class", "text": "What disclosure class does each field group carry — publicly disclosed, licensed, restricted or personal-data-bearing?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "disclosure class code", "field group scope", "basis for the classification", "classification review date" ] }, { "id": "q-disc-licence", "text": "Under which licence was source data obtained, and does that licence permit redistribution in the intended projection?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "source licence URI", "redistribution permission", "attribution requirement", "derived-work constraints" ] }, { "id": "q-disc-personal", "text": "Which fields identify natural persons, and what minimisation is applied before the record is shared?", "kind": "privacy", "answer_data": [ "personal-data field list", "minimisation rule applied", "lawful basis reference", "suppression or protected-address flags" ] }, { "id": "q-disc-retention", "text": "How long is each class retained, what triggers deletion or archival, and what survives as a tombstone?", "kind": "retention", "answer_data": [ "retention period per class", "retention trigger event", "deletion or archival action", "tombstone content and rationale" ] }, { "id": "q-disc-correction", "text": "How can the organization or a data subject request correction or erasure, and how is the outcome evidenced?", "kind": "exception", "answer_data": [ "request channel", "assessment criteria", "decision and rationale", "evidence of action and timestamp" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "disclosure-class", "name": "Disclosure class", "description": "Coded disclosure classification applied to a field group of the organization record.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "source-licence-uri", "name": "Source licence URI", "description": "URI of the licence under which source data was obtained and may be redistributed.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "retention-period", "name": "Retention period", "description": "Retention duration applicable to a disclosure class, with its triggering event.", "value_kind": "duration", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "suppression-flag", "name": "Suppression flag", "description": "Indicator that a value is suppressed or protected under an authority's protection regime.", "value_kind": "boolean", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-013" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "disclosure-and-retention-policy", "name": "Disclosure and retention policy record", "description": "Versioned policy mapping each field group of the organization record to a disclosure class, licence constraint, minimisation rule, retention period, deletion trigger and tombstone specification.", "media_or_form": [ "policy document", "structured policy record", "machine-readable ruleset" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Policy identifier within the adopting Dimension namespace plus a monotonically increasing version; effective-from and effective-to are RFC 3339 attributes and superseded versions are retained, not overwritten.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-013", "SRC-016" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null }, { "id": "record-stewardship-and-change-authority", "name": "Record stewards", "description": "The organization itself, acting through officers, is the steward of its own subject record. Registers hold registrar-stewarded copies. GLEIF ManagingLOU administers the LEI record. CBV legal representatives (via schema.org and related discovery) are not the same as employment posts. This layer records stewardship of data, not corporate governance of people.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-020", "SRC-010" ], "questions": [ { "id": "record-stewardship-and-change-authority-q01", "text": "Who is the steward of this Dimension's organization record, in which role, and through which officer or system account?", "kind": "ownership", "answer_data": [ "record: steward_organization_id, steward_role, officer_or_account_id, authority_basis, valid_from, valid_to" ] }, { "id": "record-stewardship-and-change-authority-q02", "text": "Which registrars steward authoritative copies, and which copy is master for which field group?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "array of records: registrar_id, copy_kind (home-register | lei | tax | dimension), master_for_fields[], last_aligned_at" ] }, { "id": "record-stewardship-and-change-authority-q03", "text": "Who is authorized to create, update or request deletion of identity fields, and under what evidence standard?", "kind": "authority", "answer_data": [ "array of records: agent_id, role, permitted_actions[], evidence_standard, access_exception" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "record-stewardship-and-change-authority-data01", "name": "Steward identifier", "description": "Organization, officer or system that stewards the record.", "value_kind": "identifier", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-020", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "record-stewardship-and-change-authority-data02", "name": "Master copy system", "description": "Which system is master for a named field group.", "value_kind": "code", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-020", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "record-stewardship-and-change-authority-data03", "name": "Authority basis", "description": "Legal or policy basis on which the steward acts.", "value_kind": "text", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-020", "SRC-010" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "record-stewardship-and-change-authority-artifact01", "name": "Stewardship assignment", "description": "Assignment of record stewardship and registrar-copy roles, pointing at S1/S2 grant records rather than duplicating them.", "media_or_form": [ "policy-document" ], "serial": false, "identity_strategy": "Identified by the steward identifier, the assigned role and the validity interval, pointing at the governing grant record.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-018", "SRC-020", "SRC-010" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] }, { "id": "interoperability-and-mapping", "name": "Interoperability and mapping", "description": "Declared alignments to external standards and the recorded divergences between sources that assert different values for the same organization.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010", "SRC-002", "SRC-008", "SRC-009", "SRC-013" ], "findings": [ { "id": "standard-alignment-and-divergence", "name": "Standard alignment, crosswalks and register divergence", "description": "External standards are alignments, not conformance claims. W3C ORG, schema.org, LEI-CDF, NACE and ISIC each cover overlapping but non-identical ground, and national registers legitimately disagree with global ones about name, status and address. Divergence must be recorded as an observation with sources, not silently resolved.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010", "SRC-002", "SRC-008", "SRC-009", "SRC-013" ], "questions": [ { "id": "q-align-target", "text": "To which external standard, version and element does each model element map, and is the mapping exact, broader, narrower or partial?", "kind": "interoperability", "answer_data": [ "target standard and version", "target element identifier", "mapping relation type", "known semantic loss" ] }, { "id": "q-align-conformance", "text": "Is a conformance claim being made, and if so what evidence supports it, or is this alignment only?", "kind": "evidence", "answer_data": [ "claim type (alignment or conformance)", "supporting test or certification evidence", "claim scope", "claim review date" ] }, { "id": "q-align-conflict", "text": "Where two sources assert different values for the same fact, what is recorded and which source prevails for which consumer?", "kind": "validation", "answer_data": [ "conflicting values with source references", "precedence rule applied", "consumer-specific resolution", "conflict observation timestamp" ] }, { "id": "q-align-projection", "text": "Which projections are published from this model, and which fields does each deliberately omit?", "kind": "access", "answer_data": [ "projection name", "included field set", "omitted field set and rationale", "projection consumer audience" ] } ], "data_elements": [ { "id": "alignment-mapping", "name": "Alignment mapping", "description": "Mapping from a model element to an external standard element with the mapping relation and declared loss.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "conflict-observation", "name": "Conflict observation", "description": "Recorded disagreement between sources about a fact, with values, sources and observation time.", "value_kind": "object", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "precedence-rule-ref", "name": "Precedence rule reference", "description": "Reference to the rule determining which source prevails for a given fact and consumer.", "value_kind": "reference", "cardinality": "0..n", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-005" ] } ], "artifacts": [ { "id": "alignment-and-conflict-register", "name": "Alignment and conflict register", "description": "Versioned register of external-standard mappings with relation types and declared losses, together with an append-only log of observed inter-source conflicts, precedence decisions and their rationale.", "media_or_form": [ "mapping table", "append-only log", "structured register" ], "serial": true, "identity_strategy": "Mappings keyed by source element identifier plus target standard, version and element identifier; conflict entries keyed by a ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension and ordered by RFC 3339 observation timestamp.", "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010", "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] } ], "inline_only_rationale": null } ] } ] } ] }, "functions": [ { "id": "resolve-organization-identifier", "name": "Resolve organization identifier", "description": "Resolve a scheme-qualified identifier to the canonical organization record, returning a minimal profile and the corroboration level of the answer.", "inputs": [ "identifier scheme designator", "identifier value", "requesting agent identity", "requested projection name" ], "outputs": [ "canonical organization key", "minimal profile fields for the requested projection", "corroboration level", "resolution timestamp (RFC 3339)" ], "preconditions": [ "The scheme designator exists in the identifier scheme catalogue", "The requesting agent holds access to the requested projection", "The identifier passes the scheme's syntax and check-character rule" ], "effects": [ "Emits a resolution audit entry with agent, scheme, value and timestamp", "Records a negative-resolution entry when no record matches, to avoid repeated lookups" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-012", "SRC-002", "SRC-005", "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "ingest-registry-extract", "name": "Ingest registry extract", "description": "Ingest a point-in-time extract from a named register, storing it as an immutable artifact and deriving field-level assertions with provenance.", "inputs": [ "register code", "register entity number", "extract payload", "retrieval timestamp (RFC 3339)", "source licence URI" ], "outputs": [ "stored registry extract artifact reference", "derived assertion set with provenance", "detected conflict list" ], "preconditions": [ "The register code exists in the governed registration-authority list", "The extract carries or is assigned a content digest", "The licence permits the intended storage and projection" ], "effects": [ "Creates an immutable extract artifact with digest and retrieval metadata", "Appends provenance nodes attributing each derived assertion to the register", "Raises conflict observations where derived values disagree with held values" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-013", "SRC-014", "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "assert-lifecycle-event", "name": "Assert lifecycle event", "description": "Record a lifecycle event affecting the organization, with separate effective, authority-recording and observation times, affected fields and validation documents.", "inputs": [ "organization canonical key", "event type code", "effective date", "observation timestamp (RFC 3339)", "validation document references", "asserting agent" ], "outputs": [ "lifecycle event journal entry reference", "updated affected field values", "superseded value snapshot" ], "preconditions": [ "The event type exists in the governed event type list", "The asserting agent is authorised to assert events for this organization", "Effective date is not later than the observation timestamp unless a future-dated filing is explicitly flagged" ], "effects": [ "Appends an entry to the append-only lifecycle event journal", "Updates affected fields and retains the prior values as a versioned snapshot", "Triggers re-evaluation of standing and obligation schedules" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-001", "SRC-013", "SRC-014" ] }, { "id": "evaluate-succession-continuity", "name": "Evaluate succession continuity", "description": "Decide whether a transition preserved organizational identity or created a new subject, and write the resulting lineage edges.", "inputs": [ "predecessor organization keys", "candidate successor keys or names", "transition event reference", "continuity rule set version" ], "outputs": [ "continuity decision", "lineage edge set", "carried-over and lapsed identifier lists", "decision rationale" ], "preconditions": [ "The transition event exists in the lifecycle journal", "A continuity rule set version is declared and retrievable", "At least one predecessor is identified by a canonical key" ], "effects": [ "Writes lineage edges keyed by predecessor, successor and causing event", "Marks identifiers as carried over or lapsed on the affected records", "Records the decision, deciding agent and rule version in the resolution decision log" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002", "SRC-015" ] }, { "id": "reconcile-duplicate-records", "name": "Reconcile duplicate organization records", "description": "Compare candidate records, record the comparison evidence and confidence, and execute a merge, split or explicit non-match decision with a reversible tombstone.", "inputs": [ "candidate record keys", "comparison attribute set", "match method and threshold", "deciding agent" ], "outputs": [ "resolution decision", "surviving record key", "tombstone references", "match confidence" ], "preconditions": [ "All candidates are readable by the deciding agent", "Upstream duplicate or annulled status has been checked", "A rollback path exists for the chosen action" ], "effects": [ "Writes an entry to the entity resolution decision log with evidence and confidence", "Creates tombstones that keep retired keys resolvable to the survivor", "Records explicit non-matches so the comparison is not repeated" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-011" ] }, { "id": "classify-activity", "name": "Assign or migrate activity classification", "description": "Assign an activity code under a named scheme revision, or migrate an existing assignment to a newer revision using a published correspondence table.", "inputs": [ "organization canonical key", "target scheme and revision", "source code and revision (for migration)", "principality criterion" ], "outputs": [ "activity code assignment with scheme version", "primary flag", "mapping cardinality and ambiguity note" ], "preconditions": [ "The target scheme revision is available in the local reference set", "A correspondence table exists for the requested migration", "The principality criterion is declared" ], "effects": [ "Writes the assignment with an explicit scheme revision", "Retains the prior assignment with its revision rather than overwriting it", "Flags migrations whose mapping is not one-to-one for review" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-009", "SRC-013" ] }, { "id": "record-control-relationship", "name": "Record control or ownership relationship", "description": "Create or update a relationship record between the organization and another party, with typed periods, quantifiers, interests and, where applicable, a reporting exception.", "inputs": [ "start node identifier and type", "end node identifier and type", "relationship or interest type", "period and quantifier values", "source and asserting party" ], "outputs": [ "relationship record reference", "relationship status", "exception reason where no counterparty can be reported" ], "preconditions": [ "Both endpoints resolve, or the counterparty is explicitly marked unspecified with a reason", "The relationship or interest type exists in the governed list", "Beneficial-ownership flags are set only where the interested party is a natural person" ], "effects": [ "Writes a standalone relationship record with its own registration metadata", "Records the source type, retrieval time and asserting party per statement", "Records an exception reason and review date instead of omitting an unreportable link" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-003", "SRC-011", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "evaluate-record-standing", "name": "Evaluate record standing and obligations", "description": "Recompute entity status, record registration status and the obligation schedule from held observations, flagging staleness and imminent lapse.", "inputs": [ "organization canonical key", "current status observations", "obligation definitions", "evaluation timestamp (RFC 3339)" ], "outputs": [ "normalised entity status", "record registration status per record", "obligation schedule with next due dates", "staleness and lapse warnings" ], "preconditions": [ "At least one dated status observation exists", "Obligation definitions carry authority, frequency and consequence", "Status mapping tables are versioned and available" ], "effects": [ "Persists a status observation record rather than overwriting prior statuses", "Regenerates the obligation schedule as a new version", "Emits warnings where a value is older than its source's update cadence" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-002", "SRC-013", "SRC-003" ] }, { "id": "publish-projection", "name": "Publish governed projection", "description": "Emit a scoped projection of the organization record — public directory card, compliance profile, lineage view or ownership disclosure — applying disclosure classification, minimisation and licence constraints.", "inputs": [ "organization canonical key", "projection name", "requesting audience", "licence and disclosure policy version" ], "outputs": [ "projection payload", "omitted field list with rationale", "applicable licence and attribution notice" ], "preconditions": [ "The projection is defined in the disclosure and retention policy", "Source licences permit redistribution of every included field", "Personal-data minimisation rules have been applied" ], "effects": [ "Records a disclosure event with audience, projection, policy version and timestamp", "Suppresses fields carrying protection flags or incompatible licences", "Attaches attribution and licence notices required by upstream sources" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-013", "SRC-016", "SRC-010" ] }, { "id": "apply-retention-action", "name": "Apply retention or erasure action", "description": "Execute the retention decision for a field group or record: archive, delete, or minimise to a tombstone, with evidence of the action.", "inputs": [ "organization canonical key", "field group or record scope", "retention policy version", "trigger event reference", "authorising agent" ], "outputs": [ "action outcome", "tombstone content", "evidence record reference" ], "preconditions": [ "The retention trigger has occurred and is evidenced", "A statutory minimum retention period, where one applies, has elapsed", "The authorising agent holds the retention authority for the scope" ], "effects": [ "Removes or archives the in-scope data and writes an irreversible action evidence record", "Preserves a tombstone sufficient to keep prior references resolvable", "Leaves provenance and audit entries intact unless erasure of those is separately authorised" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-013", "SRC-011", "SRC-014", "SRC-002" ] }, { "id": "map-to-external-standard", "name": "Map record to external standard", "description": "Produce an aligned representation of the organization record against a named external standard and version, declaring mapping relation types and semantic loss.", "inputs": [ "organization canonical key", "target standard and version", "mapping table version", "requested element subset" ], "outputs": [ "aligned representation", "mapping relation types per element", "declared semantic loss list" ], "preconditions": [ "A versioned mapping table exists for the target standard", "The mapping is declared as alignment unless conformance evidence is attached", "Elements without a defensible target are marked unmapped rather than forced" ], "effects": [ "Emits the aligned representation with an explicit alignment-not-conformance notice", "Records unmapped elements as gaps in the alignment register", "Never asserts conformance without attached test or certification evidence" ], "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-010", "SRC-008", "SRC-009", "SRC-002" ] } ], "composition": [ { "target": "WM-ORG-002 Organizational Unit", "relation": "CHILD", "purpose": "Internal divisions and departments of the organization are modelled as contained unit instances that resolve back to this organization's canonical key. W3C ORG's OrganizationalUnit exists only within a larger organization and cannot independently hold registry standing, so the split follows a normative distinction rather than convenience.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "WM-ORG-003 Team", "relation": "CHILD", "purpose": "Operational groupings without external legal identity are contained instances. They inherit organizational context from this model but carry no registration, standing or succession findings.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "W3C Organization Ontology (org:)", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Alignment target for Organization, FormalOrganization, OrganizationalUnit, OrganizationalCollaboration, Site, Role, Post, Membership and ChangeEvent, and for classification, purpose, identifier, subOrganizationOf, hasSite, hasRegisteredSite, resultedFrom and originalOrganization. Alignment only; no conformance is claimed.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier and the LEI-CDF reference data model", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Supplies the governed global identifier and the normative separation of entity status from record registration status, validation sources, legal entity events and successor references. Referenced, not embedded, because the Global LEI Index remains the authoritative source.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "GLEIF Relationship Record (RR-CDF) control relationships", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Provides the typed, period-bounded, quantified control relationship vocabulary and the exception reasons used when a parent cannot be reported.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-003" ] }, { "target": "ISO 20275 Entity Legal Forms code list", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Governs the legal form value space, including the reserved codes for forms not yet listed and for entities with no separate legal form. Codes are referenced by list version and are only valid with a jurisdiction.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-004" ] }, { "target": "ISO 5009 Official Organizational Roles code list", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Governs the official-role value space for representation, tied to the entity legal form, and provides the normative basis for excluding internal functional titles from statutory representation claims.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "GLEIF Registration Authorities List", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Supplies the governed register code space used to qualify every registry entry and validation source across 232 jurisdictions.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005" ] }, { "target": "ISO 3166 country and subdivision codes via the GLEIF accepted legal jurisdictions list", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Constrains jurisdiction values to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 with ISO 3166-2 subdivisions where legal forms exist only sub-nationally.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-006" ] }, { "target": "NACE Rev. 2.1 and ISIC Rev. 5 activity classifications", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Provide the versioned activity code spaces and the correspondence tables required for revision migration and cross-scheme comparison.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-008", "SRC-009" ] }, { "target": "ISO 6523 International Code Designator register (as operated in business networks)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Defines the scheme-designator plus value pattern used for both qualified identifiers and electronic business addresses, and is the structural basis required for the EU European Unique Identifier.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-012", "SRC-016" ] }, { "target": "Beneficial Ownership Data Standard (BODS)", "relation": "COMPOSE", "purpose": "Ownership and control statements compose with this model: entity records align to the organization record while person records and their privacy obligations are delegated. Interests, share ranges, component records and per-statement source metadata are adopted rather than re-invented.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011" ] }, { "target": "schema.org Organization", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Publication-side alignment for directory and web projections, confirming the identifier surface and profile fields. It is a projection vocabulary and is never treated as the semantic authority for registration or standing.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-010" ] }, { "target": "W3C PROV-O provenance vocabulary", "relation": "MIX-IN", "purpose": "Mixed in across all findings to attribute assertions to agents, derive record versions from sources and separate event time from observation time using qualified provenance where circumstances matter.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-014" ] }, { "target": "Public register model (register-as-institution)", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Registration authorities are themselves organizations with their own governance, coverage and update cadence; this model references their codes and entries without absorbing their institutional model.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-005", "SRC-016" ] }, { "target": "Person model", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Officers, authorised representatives and beneficial owners are person subjects held elsewhere; this model stores only references so that personal-data access and retention rules stay in one place.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-007" ] }, { "target": "Charter and constitutive rules model", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Object clauses, powers, decision procedures and amendment rules are referenced from the purpose and representation findings rather than duplicated, keeping a single authoritative text.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-011" ] }, { "target": "Employment and appointment model", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Person-to-organization working relations resolve against the identity kept here; membership and role occupancy semantics are delegated to that model.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001" ] }, { "target": "Place, address and facility model", "relation": "REFERENCE", "purpose": "Presence points reference place records for geometry, building identity and postal normalisation; this model keeps only the presence assertion, its role and its validity.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-001", "SRC-002" ] }, { "target": "Statistical business register units (legal unit, enterprise, enterprise group, local unit)", "relation": "ALIGN", "purpose": "Alignment only: statistical units follow control and economic activity rather than legal personality, so the mapping is recorded as a classification and must never drive merging or splitting of organization records.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-015", "SRC-008" ] }, { "target": "Stewardship and access-grant service models", "relation": "MIX-IN", "purpose": "Ownership of the record and issuance of access grants over it are governed by the catalogue's service models; this model supplies the disclosure classes and scopes those services enforce.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-011", "SRC-013" ] }, { "target": "Audit trail service model", "relation": "MIX-IN", "purpose": "Every lifecycle event, resolution decision, disclosure and retention action emits an audit facet, satisfying the append-only requirements stated in the artifact rules.", "required": false, "source_refs": [ "SRC-014", "SRC-002" ] } ], "serviceLayers": { "dimension": { "owner_package_requirements": [ "The adopting Dimension must declare a single owner package for WM-ORG-001 that holds the canonical organization records, the identifier scheme catalogue and the alignment register, and must name a responsible steward reachable through an officer of the organization or its delegate.", "The owner package must publish its identifier priority configuration — which master systems are authoritative, which governed global identifiers are accepted, and the UUID or ULID generator used for dimension-assigned keys — so that key selection is reproducible and auditable.", "The owner package must pin the versions of every external code list it consumes (entity legal forms, official roles, registration authorities, accepted jurisdictions, activity classifications, identifier scheme designators) and must record the pinned version on every coded value it writes.", "The owner package must declare the disclosure and retention policy version in force and the licences under which each ingested source may be redistributed, before any projection is published.", "The owner package must expose a conflict register and a named resolution authority for cases where two sources disagree about the same organization fact." ], "namespace_guidance": "Use a stable, dereferenceable namespace for organization records under the adopting Dimension, with the model's stable identifiers (bundle, layer, finding, data element, artifact, function ids) as lower-kebab-case path segments beneath it. External code values must always be carried as a scheme-designator plus value pair rather than flattened into a local string, so that a value can never be reinterpreted under the wrong scheme. Do not mint namespace segments from names, addresses or dates; segments derive only from canonical keys. Local extensions live under an explicitly separated extension segment and must never shadow a governed element name.", "registry_links": [ "vr.wm-org-001 is the registry entry for this model; nav path NAV.SOC.ORG.ORG, domain tags SOC.ORG.ORG, legacy alias O1.", "CONTAINS relations to WM-ORG-002 (organizational units) and WM-ORG-003 (teams) are declared in the catalogue relations file and are instance-level containment, not schema inheritance.", "External governed registries referenced by version: entity legal forms, official organizational roles, registration authorities, accepted legal jurisdictions, activity classifications and identifier scheme designators." ] }, "canon_and_patch": { "canonicalization_rules": [ "Canonical form is the semantic record, not any serialization: property order, whitespace, key quoting and file layout carry no meaning and must be normalised away before comparison or digesting.", "Coded values canonicalise to the pair (scheme designator with version, value) with the value preserved exactly as issued, including case and check characters; never uppercase, trim or reformat an issued identifier.", "All timestamps canonicalise to RFC 3339 with seconds and an explicit offset or Z; dates that are genuinely date-only remain full-dates and are not promoted to timestamps with a fabricated time.", "Names and addresses canonicalise to the source language and script with a language tag; transliterations are additional values with a transliteration flag and never replace the source form.", "Absent values canonicalise to explicit absence markers with a reason (not applicable, unknown, suppressed, pending) rather than to null or empty string, because the four cases have different consequences." ], "patch_rules": [ "Every change is expressed as a patch carrying the target canonical key, the prior version tag, the asserting agent, the source reference and an RFC 3339 observation timestamp; blind overwrites are rejected.", "Patches to coded values must state the code-list version under which the new value is valid; a code-list version bump is itself a patch and must be recorded as such.", "Corrections and lifecycle changes are distinct patch classes: a correction fixes a previously wrong assertion and preserves the erroneous value in history, while a lifecycle change records a real-world transition with its own effective date.", "Patches that would change the canonical key are rejected; key change is performed only by an explicit merge, split or supersession operation that leaves the prior key resolvable as a tombstone.", "Patch application is idempotent under the same prior version tag and observation timestamp, so replayed ingestion cannot create duplicate history." ], "compatibility_rules": [ "Adding a new optional data element, artifact, question or alignment is a minor change; removing or narrowing an element, tightening cardinality, or changing the meaning of a code is a major change requiring a new model version.", "Code-list version upgrades are non-breaking only when the correspondence is one-to-one; any one-to-many or many-to-one mapping must be flagged for review and recorded with a mapping ambiguity note rather than applied silently.", "Consumers must tolerate unknown additional elements and must not infer meaning from element order or from the presence of an extension segment.", "Removing a disclosure class or widening a projection's field set is a breaking change for downstream licence compliance and requires policy re-approval before release.", "Deprecated elements remain readable for at least one major version with a deprecation notice and a documented replacement path." ] }, "artifact_rules": { "identity_priority": [ "Authoritative master-system identifier: the identifier issued by the system of record for the artifact, such as a register code plus entry or filing number, an issuing authority's document reference, or a publisher-assigned statement identifier.", "Governed global identifier or IRI: a scheme-qualified identifier from a governed registry, such as an ISO 17442 legal entity identifier, an ISO 6523 scheme designator plus value, or a dereferenceable IRI minted under a governed namespace.", "UUID or ULID assigned by the adopting Dimension, used only when neither of the above exists; the assignment is recorded with its generator, assigning agent and timestamp so it can be audited and never silently regenerated.", "A date, a name, an address, a hash of mutable content or a file path is never an identifier; where such values appear in a key they must be reduced to attributes." ], "timestamp_rule": "All time values are recorded in RFC 3339 format with seconds and either an explicit numeric UTC offset or Z; date-only facts are recorded as RFC 3339 full-dates and are never padded with a fabricated time. Event time (when a fact became true), authority recording time (when a source registered it) and observation or ingestion time (when this system learned it) are stored as separate fields, and no two may be inferred from one another. Where the source offset is unknown, that is recorded as an explicit precision or offset-unknown marker rather than defaulting to UTC.", "serial_naming_rule": "Serial artifacts (extracts, observation records, event journal entries, decision logs, assessments, schedules, policy versions, mapping releases) are named by their stable subject key plus a monotonically increasing sequence or a lexicographically sortable ULID, with the RFC 3339 timestamp carried as an attribute and never as the name. Sequences are per subject and per artifact class, are never reused after deletion, and gaps are permitted and must not be interpreted as data loss without an accompanying tombstone.", "integrity_rule": "Every retained artifact carries a content digest computed over its canonical form, the algorithm identifier, the retrieval or generation timestamp, the asserting agent and the source licence. Artifacts backing legal or registry facts are stored immutably: corrections create a new version linked to the prior one by a derivation edge rather than mutating the original. Journals, decision logs and audit facets are append-only; deletion is permitted only through an authorised retention action that leaves an irreversible action evidence record and a tombstone sufficient to keep prior references resolvable." }, "policies": [ "External standards are alignments. No conformance to any standard, ontology or code list may be claimed without attached test or certification evidence, and every mapping must declare its relation type and its semantic loss.", "Absence is data. Unknown, not-applicable, suppressed and pending are distinct recorded states with reasons and review dates; a field is never left empty to mean any of them, and a missing parent, identifier or address is recorded with an explicit exception reason rather than omitted.", "The organization's own existence and the standing of any record about it are separate state machines and must never be collapsed into a single status field.", "Personal data reaching this model through officers, representatives and beneficial owners is held by reference and minimised before any projection; personal-data classes carry their own retention periods and are never inherited from the organization record's retention.", "Registry-sourced data is redistributed only within the licence under which it was obtained, with required attribution attached to the projection.", "Identity is never derived from names, addresses or dates; merges and splits require recorded evidence, a confidence statement, a named deciding agent and a reversible tombstone.", "Coded values are meaningless without their code-list version; writing a code without its pinned scheme version is a validation failure, not a warning.", "Treat W3C ORG, RegOrg, CBV, ISO 17442, ISO 20275, ISIC and NACE as alignments; do not claim conformance without a recorded evidence artifact.", "Public directory projections omit identifier history, non-public contact channels and internal purpose drafts; compliance projections require an admitted requester and an audit record.", "Dissolution retires the subject but does not reuse identifiers and does not by itself delete lineage.", "Stewards of the record are the organization via officers plus named registrars for their copies; Dimension operators may not silently overwrite master-system legal names or legal identifiers." ], "crud": { "read": [ "Reads are scoped by projection: a caller receives the field set defined for its audience under the current disclosure policy, with omitted fields reported as omitted rather than silently dropped.", "Every read of a restricted or personal-data-bearing scope emits an access audit entry with caller identity, projection, policy version and RFC 3339 timestamp.", "Reads return the record version tag and the corroboration level so callers can reason about staleness and can perform safe conditional writes.", "Historical reads are supported as-at a supplied observation time, returning what was known then rather than what is known now." ], "create": [ "Creating an organization record requires a canonical key selected under the identity priority, the jurisdiction of formation and at least one dated source assertion; a name alone is insufficient.", "Creation must check governed registries and the local conflict register for an existing record, and must record an explicit non-match decision when it proceeds anyway.", "Creation of relationship, ownership and event records is independent of endpoint creation: a relationship may be created with an explicitly unspecified counterparty and a recorded reason.", "Every created record carries provenance at creation: source, source type, asserting agent, licence and retrieval timestamp." ], "update": [ "Updates are patches against a prior version tag; a mismatch is a conflict, is rejected, and is recorded in the conflict register rather than resolved by last-writer-wins.", "Updates must classify themselves as correction or lifecycle change, and lifecycle changes must supply an effective date distinct from the observation timestamp.", "Prior values are retained as versioned history; overwriting without history is prohibited for any field backed by a registry or legal fact.", "Bulk updates from a source refresh must produce per-field conflict observations where they disagree with more strongly corroborated values, instead of overwriting them." ], "delete": [ "Hard deletion of organization records is prohibited by default; the normal terminal state is a dissolution or supersession event plus a tombstone that keeps prior references resolvable.", "Deletion is permitted only through an authorised retention action bound to a retention policy version, an evidenced trigger and an expired statutory minimum period where one applies.", "Erasure of personal-data fields is performed by field-group minimisation rather than record deletion, so that the organization record and its provenance survive.", "Every deletion or erasure writes an irreversible action evidence record naming the authorising agent, the scope, the policy version and the RFC 3339 execution timestamp." ] }, "roles": [ { "name": "Organization record steward", "responsibilities": [ "Own the canonical organization record on behalf of the organization, acting through its officers or their delegate", "Approve merges, splits, supersessions and canonical key changes", "Maintain the declared purpose, presence and affiliation assertions and confirm their currency" ] }, { "name": "Registry liaison", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain register codes, credentials and licences for every source register the Dimension ingests from", "Schedule and execute registry extract ingestion and reconcile divergences against held values", "Track register coverage, update cadence and outage so staleness thresholds remain realistic" ] }, { "name": "Reference data curator", "responsibilities": [ "Pin, upgrade and publish versions of every governed code list the model consumes", "Maintain correspondence tables for activity, legal form, status and identifier schemes, with ambiguity flags", "Review one-to-many mappings before any bulk migration is applied" ] }, { "name": "Data quality assessor", "responsibilities": [ "Run periodic quality assessments covering corroboration, completeness, staleness and conflicts", "Assign remediation owners and due dates and verify closure", "Publish the assessment history so quality trends are falsifiable" ] }, { "name": "Disclosure and privacy officer", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain the disclosure classification, licence constraints and minimisation rules per field group", "Approve new projections and audience scopes before release", "Handle correction and erasure requests and evidence their outcomes" ] }, { "name": "Retention authority", "responsibilities": [ "Approve and execute retention, archival and erasure actions against the current policy version", "Verify that statutory minimum retention periods have elapsed before any deletion", "Ensure tombstones preserve enough to keep prior references resolvable" ] }, { "name": "Interoperability maintainer", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain the alignment register and its declared mapping relations and semantic losses", "Reject or downgrade unevidenced conformance claims", "Version and publish outbound projections and their omitted-field rationales" ] } ], "access": { "default_rule": "Deny by default. Access is granted per scope to a named agent for a declared purpose and period, under the disclosure class of the requested fields and the licence of their sources. Fields that registers publish freely may be exposed in a public projection; licensed, restricted and personal-data-bearing fields require an explicit grant, and personal-data fields are additionally minimised before release.", "scopes": [ "bundle", "layer", "finding", "artifact" ], "exceptions": [ "Publicly disclosed registry facts may be served without an individual grant where the source licence permits redistribution and required attribution is attached.", "Protected or suppressed values flagged by an authority's protection regime are withheld even from otherwise authorised callers, and the withholding is reported as an omission with a reason.", "Emergency or statutory disclosure to a competent authority may bypass the standard grant path but must be recorded with the legal basis, the requesting authority and the scope released.", "The organization's own steward may read the full record about that organization, excluding third-party personal data and licensed source content whose terms forbid onward disclosure.", "Ownership and beneficial-ownership statements follow the publishing licence attached to their statement set, which may be narrower than the organization record's default class.", "Statutory open-register extracts may be disclosed without a private grant when the source register is public.", "A successor or acquiring organization may read lineage of a ceased predecessor needed to complete the corporate action.", "Non-public contact channels are visible only to organization-steward and agents with a legal-notices exception.", "Quality-exception payloads (failed corroboration) are visible to compliance-reader even when full presence detail is not." ], "audit_requirements": [ "Every read of a restricted, licensed or personal-data-bearing scope is logged with caller identity, scope, projection, policy version and RFC 3339 timestamp.", "Every grant issuance, modification and revocation is logged with the authorising agent, purpose, scope and validity period.", "Every merge, split, correction, deletion and erasure writes an append-only entry that cannot be edited, only superseded.", "Audit entries are retained at least as long as the data they describe, and their own deletion requires separate authorisation recorded outside the deleted scope.", "Access logs are themselves classified as personal-data-bearing where they identify natural persons and are minimised accordingly.", "Every compliance-profile read records requester, purpose, projection and datetime.", "Every create or update of legal name, legal identifier, legal form, status or successor links records actor, evidence reference, effective time and recorded time.", "Identifier resolution that returns DUPLICATE, ANNULLED or successor-required must be auditable." ] }, "agents_bootstrap": { "filename": "AGENTS.md", "required_fields": [ "Name", "Type", "Specification URL", "Storage type URL", "Interface URL", "Processes URL", "Model ID and registry ID", "Version and effective date (RFC 3339)", "Owner package and steward contact", "Pinned external code list versions", "Disclosure and retention policy version", "Identity priority configuration" ], "read_order": [ "AGENTS.md first, to obtain Name, Type, Specification URL, Storage type URL, Interface URL and Processes URL before touching any data — this holds even when the storage is MongoDB or the interface is MCP, because the bootstrap contract is storage- and interface-neutral.", "Specification URL next, to load the model semantics: scope, boundaries, bundles, layers, findings, data elements and artifact rules.", "Storage type URL, to learn how the semantic record is projected into the concrete store, including canonicalization, versioning and digest conventions.", "Interface URL, to learn the available operations, projections, scopes and error semantics before attempting any read or write.", "Processes URL, to learn the governed procedures for ingestion, resolution, lifecycle assertion, quality assessment, disclosure and retention.", "Pinned code list versions and the disclosure and retention policy version, before writing any coded value or publishing any projection." ] } }, "coverage": { "claim": "The synthesized WM-ORG-001 covers the organization as an externally addressable subject: designation and name history, scheme-qualified identity and canonical key selection, legal form and entity category, formality spectrum and home legal jurisdiction, activity and statistical classification, declared purpose and scale, formation, registry entry, standing and recurring obligations, lifecycle events, succession, dissolution, organization-side control and ownership endpoints, official roles and affiliation, presence and reachability, and record provenance, stewardship, quality, disclosure, retention and interoperability. Coverage is strongest for registered legal entities in jurisdictions carried by the GLEIF registration-authority and ELF lists and for European classification schemes; it is demonstrably weaker for informal, customary, religious and indigenous collectives, for North American activity classification, and for redomiciliation and post-strike-off restoration. No claim of universal or metaphysical completeness is made.", "confidence": "medium", "checklist": [ { "dimension": "identity", "status": "covered", "notes": "Scheme-qualified identifiers, canonical key priority (master-system, governed global/IRI, dimension-assigned UUID/ULID), alias retention, name forms and entity resolution with recorded evidence and confidence. Grounded in LEI-CDF, the ISO 6523 ICD register, BODS identifiers and the EU requirement that the EUID be ISO 6523 compliant." }, { "dimension": "lifecycle", "status": "covered", "notes": "Formation act and creation date, entity status separated from record registration status with real enumerations, qualified status detail, recurring obligations with due dates and lapse consequences, lifecycle event journal and succession/continuity decisions. Grounded in LEI-CDF LegalEntityEvents, Companies House status enumerations and W3C ORG ChangeEvent." }, { "dimension": "relationships", "status": "covered", "notes": "Consolidation, branch and fund links with typed periods, quantifiers and eight exception reasons; ownership and beneficial-ownership interests with direct/indirect, share ranges and component records for indirect chains; official roles and non-controlling affiliations kept separate. Grounded in RR-CDF, BODS and ISO 5009." }, { "dimension": "temporal", "status": "covered", "notes": "RFC 3339 with seconds and explicit offset or Z; event time, authority recording time and observation/ingestion time held separately and never inferred from one another; validity intervals on names, forms, appointments, sites and interests; three distinct relationship period types; as-at historical reads." }, { "dimension": "provenance", "status": "covered", "notes": "Per-assertion source, source type, licence, retrieval timestamp and asserting agent; derivation typed as copy, revision, transformation or inference; a provenance graph artifact using PROV-O starting-point and qualified terms with prov:Organization as agent." }, { "dimension": "ownership", "status": "covered", "notes": "Two senses are distinguished and both covered: ownership of the organization (interests, beneficial ownership, consolidation, global decision centre) and ownership of the record (steward role, asserting agent, publisher, licence)." }, { "dimension": "validation", "status": "covered", "notes": "Graded corroboration (pending, entity-supplied-only, partially corroborated, fully corroborated) against a named validation authority with validation documents; identifier syntax and check-character rules; version-tag concurrency; partial-data markers; explicit non-match records." }, { "dimension": "access", "status": "covered", "notes": "Deny-by-default with grants scoped to bundle, layer, finding and artifact; five named exception classes including authority-suppressed values and statutory disclosure; audit requirements on reads, grants and mutations; projections report omitted fields rather than dropping them silently." }, { "dimension": "retention and deletion", "status": "covered", "notes": "Per-disclosure-class retention with evidenced triggers, statutory minimum checks, field-group minimisation for personal data instead of record deletion, tombstones that keep prior references resolvable, and irreversible action evidence records. Hard deletion of organization records is prohibited by default." }, { "dimension": "interoperability", "status": "covered", "notes": "Alignment-not-conformance policy, versioned mapping tables with relation types and declared semantic loss, activity-scheme correspondence tables with mapping cardinality, status-value mapping with loss notes, and a conflict register with per-consumer precedence rules." }, { "dimension": "classification", "status": "covered", "notes": "Legal form (ISO 20275 with reserved 8888/9999), entity category and subcategory, legal personality, activity codes under versioned schemes, statistical unit alignment, size class and non-profit status." }, { "dimension": "spatial", "status": "covered", "notes": "Jurisdiction constrained to ISO 3166-1/-2 via the accepted jurisdictions list, registered versus operating locations, branches, served areas and delegation of geometry to the place model. Address language and script are treated as first-class." }, { "dimension": "authority", "status": "covered", "notes": "Registration authorities from a governed 232-jurisdiction list, validation authority, official organizational roles tied to legal form with representation powers and joint-signature rules, granting authorities for non-profit status, and statutory or treaty formation for public bodies." }, { "dimension": "privacy", "status": "covered", "notes": "Personal data held by reference only, disclosure classes per field group, minimisation before projection, authority protection and suppression flags, and correction/erasure request handling with evidenced outcomes." }, { "dimension": "exception handling", "status": "covered", "notes": "Absence is modelled as data with reasons and review dates: reserved legal-form codes, reporting exception reasons for unreportable parents, unspecified-entity reasons in ownership, unknown-date markers, registration-not-applicable for informal organizations." }, { "dimension": "measurement", "status": "covered", "notes": "Size and relationship quantifiers carry method, unit, reference period and producing party, with consolidation scope declared; match confidence is expressed on a named scale." }, { "dimension": "security", "status": "gap", "notes": "Transport security, authentication mechanisms, key management and integrity signing beyond content digests are deliberately not modelled here. They belong to the storage and interface projections and to platform service models; no cited primary source in this set governs them at the semantic layer, so asserting structure would be unsupported." }, { "dimension": "process", "status": "covered", "notes": "Eleven governed functions with preconditions and effects cover resolution, ingestion, event assertion, continuity evaluation, deduplication, classification migration, relationship recording, standing evaluation, projection publication, retention action and standard mapping." } ], "known_omissions": [ "Informal, customary, religious and indigenous organizations are structurally accommodated (registration is optional, identity can rest on a dimension-assigned key) but are not positively grounded: none of the cited primary sources model them, so the treatment is a designed accommodation rather than an evidenced structure.", "Financial standing, credit, sanctions and watchlist status are omitted. They are consumer-specific assessments over this record, change on a different cadence, and would import licensing and accuracy obligations that do not belong to organizational identity.", "Trademark and trade-name rights over organization names are omitted; the naming layer records name forms and validity but makes no claim about who is entitled to use a name.", "Internal governance procedure — board composition rules, quorum, voting and delegation mechanics — is referenced to the charter model and not modelled here, so questions about how a decision was validly taken cannot be answered from this model alone.", "Digital-identity credentials for organizations (verifiable credentials, organizational wallets, vLEI-style role credentials) are not modelled. They were not verifiable from the primary sources retrieved in this pass and would need their own evidenced layer.", "Multi-jurisdiction tax identity (VAT group membership, permanent establishment, tax residence) is only touched through identifier schemes; its substantive rules are jurisdiction-specific and belong to a tax model.", "Organization-to-organization contractual relationships (joint ventures beyond W3C ORG's OrganizationalCollaboration, consortia, franchise networks) are only weakly covered by the affiliation finding.", "Historical and defunct organizations predating modern registers are accommodated by unknown-date markers but have no evidenced identity strategy in the cited sources.", "Cross-border redomiciliation/continuation as a standardized event type.", "Restoration after administrative strike-off as a global code.", "Name reservation and companies in formation before legal personality.", "Series LLCs, protected-cell companies and similar internal liability partitions.", "DAOs and smart-contract collectives without a register or LEI-eligible contract capacity.", "Indigenous nations and polities as sovereigns rather than organizations.", "A single global nonprofit/charity classification.", "Sanctions, licensing and fitness-to-operate registers.", "GLEIF RR-CDF Level 2 parent, fund-relationship and reporting-exception records.", "Officer/director registers as a governance model (ISO 5009 roles discovered but not fetched as a governing source).", "NAICS as a first-party Bureau source was not fetched; North American activity is a likely regional omission.", "Core Public Organisation Vocabulary is a specialized public-body profile not fully expanded here." ], "conflicts": [ "Directive (EU) 2017/1132 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1042 could not be rendered in full by the retrieval tool; the EUID provisions cited in SRC-016 were surfaced from EUR-Lex indexed text rather than a full-text read, and must be verified against the Official Journal before being relied on normatively. This is the weakest evidential link in the model and the EUID-specific data element should be treated as provisional.", "FATF Recommendations 24 and 25 on basic company information and beneficial ownership were unreachable (HTTP 403) in this pass. The beneficial-ownership structure therefore rests on BODS, an authority-tier-2 standard, rather than on the intergovernmental requirement it implements; the ownership layer should be re-grounded when FATF text is retrievable.", "Status vocabularies conflict irreconcilably across sources: LEI-CDF uses a two-value entity status plus a ten-value registration status, while Companies House uses a twelve-value national enumeration mixing legal states (dissolved, liquidation) with record states (removed, open). Any normalised status is lossy, which is why the model requires both the source value and the mapping loss note to be retained.", "'Organization' scope conflicts between sources: W3C ORG admits informal collectives, LEI-CDF is restricted to entities that can be validated against a registration authority, and BODS distinguishes registeredEntity from legalEntity, arrangement, anonymousEntity and unknownEntity. This model takes the broad W3C reading and treats registry-backed structure as conditional.", "Legal form and activity classification are jurisdiction-bound and revision-bound: the same organization can hold non-equivalent NACE and ISIC codes, and a legal form may exist only at ISO 3166-2 subdivision level. Cross-scheme comparison without a declared correspondence table and mapping cardinality is unsound.", "Statistical enterprise boundaries follow control while legal-unit boundaries follow legal personality, so official statistics and legal registers will legitimately disagree about how many organizations exist in a group. The model records this as alignment and forbids using statistical units to merge or split records.", "W3C ORG recommends one legally recognized skos:prefLabel; RegOrg and CBV allow multiple legalName values in multilingual jurisdictions; LEI-CDF allows one Primary LegalName plus OtherEntityNames.", "ORG identifier is a typed literal; RegOrg/CBV require a structured ADMS Identifier; both can be derived in one direction only.", "LEI EntityStatus, LEI RegistrationStatus and national orgStatus vocabularies are three different state machines often wrongly merged.", "NACE Rev. 2, NACE Rev. 2.1, ISIC Rev. 4 and ISIC Rev. 5 are related but not interchangeable; schema.org still cites ISIC Rev. 4.", "ELF codes are unique per jurisdiction-form pair; similarly named forms (SA, LLC, GmbH) are not equivalent across borders.", "AssociatedEntity is deprecated in LEI-CDF 3.1 in favour of events and relationship records.", "A GLEIF BRANCH category is not an org:OrganizationalUnit and not necessarily an org:Site.", "CBV/RegOrg exclude informal organizations that W3C ORG and this catalogue purpose explicitly include." ], "regional_assumptions": [ "The registration and standing bundle is strongest for jurisdictions covered by the GLEIF registration-authority list (232 jurisdictions, 1,050+ registers); coverage depth, update cadence and data quality vary sharply between them and are not uniform.", "Activity classification assumes access to NACE Rev. 2.1 (European statistics from 2025) or ISIC Rev. 5 (endorsed 2023); jurisdictions on older revisions or on wholly national schemes require correspondence tables that may be one-to-many.", "The EUID and BRIS interconnection provisions apply only to EU member-state registers and to companies and branches within their scope; they are not a global identifier mechanism and must not be assumed elsewhere.", "Electronic addressing examples derive from a European business network; the scheme-designator plus value pattern generalises, but the specific designators and the availability of a participant registry do not.", "The personal-data treatment assumes a jurisdiction with data-protection obligations over officer and beneficial-owner data and with a correction/erasure route; jurisdictions with full public disclosure of officer data, or with none, will need different disclosure classes.", "Non-profit and public-benefit status is granted per jurisdiction under non-comparable criteria; the status code is only interpretable together with its granting jurisdiction and instrument.", "Latin-script assumptions are avoided in the model but persist in several cited code lists, which supply transliterations rather than treating non-Latin forms as primary.", "Home legal jurisdiction can be expressed as ISO 3166-1 or 3166-2.", "Where a business register exists, it is the master for legal name, legal identifier and national legal form.", "EU interoperability prefers NACE; global statistical comparison prefers ISIC; other regions use national schemes mapped to ISIC.", "LEI is widely available for contract-capable entities but is not mandatory for all organization types or informal collectives.", "ELF list v1.6 still uses reserved 8888/9999 where research is incomplete, including some legal forms not yet enumerated.", "French overseas territories sharing French legislation inherit French ELF codes and legal jurisdiction France, per GLEIF ELF notes.", "Public access to company extracts varies; UK/EU open-register practice must not be assumed for all states." ], "adversarial_checks": [ "Counterexample — organization without any register: community groups, unincorporated associations and informal collectives have no registry entry, no legal form code and no scheme identifier. The model survives because registration, legal form and standing are optional, identity may rest on a dimension-assigned UUID/ULID, and the entity-category finding forces the applicability question explicitly. A structure that required a registration number would have been rejected.", "Counterexample — branch with its own identifier but no legal personality: a branch can hold an LEI under EntityCategory BRANCH while being legally part of another entity. This breaks any rule equating 'has a global identifier' with 'is a legal person', so legal personality is modelled as a separate flag and the branch link is a typed relationship rather than internal containment.", "Counterexample — one organization, many contradictory registers: a multinational may be simultaneously ACTIVE in a global index and 'liquidation' in a national register, with different legal names in each. Rather than picking a winner, the model requires the conflict to be recorded with both sources and resolved per consumer through a precedence rule, and forbids overwriting a more strongly corroborated value during bulk refresh.", "Rejected structure — a single 'status' field: attractive and near-universal in practice, but LEI-CDF's separation of entity status from registration status plus Companies House's mixed enumeration prove that at least two independent state machines exist. A single field was rejected as unsupported and actively lossy.", "Rejected structure — 'organization = legal unit': Eurostat register practice shows an enterprise may span several legal units and that group boundaries follow control. Equating the organization with the legal unit would have made statistical alignment impossible, so statistical unit type became a classification with an explicit prohibition on using it to merge or split records.", "Rejected structure — name-based or address-based identity: names are non-unique within and across registers, change without identity change, and exist in multiple scripts; addresses are shared by thousands of service-provided entities. Both were excluded from every identity strategy, and the artifact rules state this explicitly.", "Rejected structure — folding beneficial ownership persons into this model: it would import personal-data retention, minimisation and access obligations onto the organization record. BODS's separation of entity, person and relationship records supports delegating person records, so only organization-side endpoints are kept.", "Stress test — silent absence: a naive model represents a missing parent, an unlisted legal form and a suppressed address all as null. The cited sources supply four distinct mechanisms (eight reporting exception reasons, reserved codes 8888/9999, unspecified-entity reasons, authority suppression flags), so explicit absence-with-reason was made a policy rather than a convention.", "Stress test — conformance inflation: it would be easy to claim conformance to W3C ORG, ISO 17442 and schema.org simultaneously. No test or certification evidence was retrieved for any of them, so all are recorded as ALIGN or REFERENCE, and the mapping function is required to attach an alignment-not-conformance notice.", "Informal community versus registered company: refusing a fake company number while still assigning a Dimension id and names.", "Lapsed LEI versus dissolved entity: a non-renewed identifier must not be treated as cessation.", "Duplicate LEI exclusivity violation: DUPLICATE status marks the non-surviving identifier, not a second organization.", "International branch with own LEI versus a mere site of headquarters.", "Merger where the surviving legal entity keeps its id versus a new entity that must receive a new canonical id.", "Two official legal names in a bilingual jurisdiction versus a translation stored as a trading name.", "Subsidiary that is a full Organization versus a department modelled as WM-ORG-002.", "Government ministry that can contract without incorporation, eligible for LEI as RESIDENT_GOVERNMENT_ENTITY.", "Sole proprietor where the human person is a sibling and only the business capacity is this subject.", "Activity code copied from an old NACE Rev. 2 filing after the statistical program moved to Rev. 2.1 without correspondence." ] }, "researchAdjudication": { "boundaryDecision": { "entry_kind": "entity", "status": "accepted", "rationale": "Both providers independently returned entry_kind 'entity' and the subject behaves as one: a persistent, externally addressable subject bearing identity, classification, standing and a lifecycle, not an event, relation or service. The one live boundary divergence is control and ownership: the base retains organization-side endpoints of consolidation, group and beneficial-ownership relationship records while Grok delegates them entirely to a sibling. Adjudicated in favour of the base, because BODS itself separates entity records, person records and relationship records, so keeping only the entity-side endpoint is evidenced rather than invented, and the base already delegates person records with their distinct privacy, access and retention obligations. The ownership layer is nonetheless marked as the seam to re-test when the sibling relationship model is registered, so this acceptance is of the base's endpoint-only reading, not of a full relationship model living inside WM-ORG-001." }, "decisions": [ { "concept": "Base provider selection", "disposition": "Claude adopted as base", "rationale": "Nine evidenced neighbor notes, each carrying an operational discrimination test for the hard cases (branch holding its own LEI, statistical enterprise spanning legal units, sole proprietor, register-as-institution, fund and sub-fund, informal collectives, BODS person records, site and place), plus explicit prohibition rules. Grok's boundary is cleaner only where it delegates ownership wholesale, and it leaves umbrella, branch and successor relations half-inside. Size was not the deciding factor." }, { "concept": "Control and ownership inside the organization model", "disposition": "Base reading retained; endpoint-only scope confirmed", "rationale": "Grok places beneficial ownership, shareholding and GLEIF Level 2 records entirely out of scope. The base keeps only the organization-side endpoints, which BODS supports by separating entity, person and relationship records. Retaining the endpoint preserves group and consolidation answerability without importing person-level privacy, access and retention obligations." }, { "concept": "Home legal jurisdiction as a first-class finding", "disposition": "Accepted from Grok", "rationale": "The base makes legal form jurisdiction-dependent and cites the accepted-jurisdictions code list, yet never establishes the jurisdiction of formation as its own fact, leaving a dangling dependency and no answer for multi-register countries." }, { "concept": "Organization formality spectrum", "disposition": "Accepted from Grok", "rationale": "The base declares a broad W3C ORG reading that admits informal collectives but implements it only as an exception question under a GLEIF category vocabulary. The W3C ORG, RegOrg and CBV three-step spectrum gives that reading real structure." }, { "concept": "National legal form vocabulary alongside ELF", "disposition": "Accepted from Grok", "rationale": "ELF is a cross-border alignment and does not replace the home register's own form code when that register is master; the cross-border false-equivalence guard for SA, LLC and GmbH is absent from the base." }, { "concept": "Dissolution as a terminal state distinct from succession", "disposition": "Accepted from Grok", "rationale": "The base models termination only as a transition to a successor and cannot represent cessation without one, winding-up in progress, or the rule that identifiers remain historical keys and are never reassigned." }, { "concept": "Record stewardship and change authority", "disposition": "Accepted from Grok", "rationale": "The base's checklist claims steward coverage that no finding implements; per-field-group master assignment and authorised change agents are distinct from provenance attribution." }, { "concept": "LEI and global identifier scheme specifics (grok lei-and-global-schemes)", "disposition": "Deferred, not added", "rationale": "The ISO 17442 eligibility test and LEI exclusivity rule are genuinely unanswerable from the base's generic scheme-qualified identifier finding, but Grok's evidence is an ISO catalogue landing page, not the normative text, and a scheme-specific finding would cut against the base's deliberate format-neutral generalisation. Re-open once ISO 17442-1:2020 normative text is readable." }, { "concept": "National standing codes (grok national-standing-codes)", "disposition": "Rejected as duplicative", "rationale": "The base's entity-status-vs-registration-status finding already asks for qualifying status detail and the governing procedure for administration, liquidation and struck-off-pending, and already requires the source value plus a mapping loss note. Only the restoration and redomiciliation gap is genuinely new, and both providers agree no primary cross-jurisdictional schema exists for it, so it moves to deferred research rather than into structure." }, { "concept": "Primary versus secondary activity (grok primary-versus-secondary-activity)", "disposition": "Rejected as duplicative", "rationale": "The base's activity-code-assignments finding already asks which activity is principal and by what criterion principality was determined, and separately asks whether the code was assigned by the organization, a register or a statistical authority." }, { "concept": "Contact channels (grok contact-channels)", "disposition": "Rejected as duplicative", "rationale": "The base's electronic-addresses-and-channels finding already covers channel purpose including legal service, per-channel verification, and retirement with redirect or tombstone, on a stronger scheme-qualified footing than the schema.org-backed alternative." }, { "concept": "Non-activity classifications (grok non-activity-classifications)", "disposition": "Rejected as weakly supported and overlapping", "rationale": "Charity and nonprofit status is already carried by the base's purpose-and-nonprofit-status finding with a granting authority and instrument. The remaining taxonomic-scheme content rests on W3C ORG plus a tier-3 schema.org reference, and Grok itself records the absence of any cross-border nonprofit classification as a gap." }, { "concept": "Multiple co-equal legal names in multilingual jurisdictions", "disposition": "Accepted as a required correction to the base naming finding, not as a new finding", "rationale": "RegOrg and SEMIC CBV make legalName a repeatable language-tagged literal precisely because bilingual jurisdictions grant several legal names of equal standing, which contradicts the base question asking which single name form is the legal name. Adding Grok's finding would duplicate name-forms-and-validity, so this is recorded as a framing correction and carried as a publication hold instead." }, { "concept": "Alternative-name integrity rule", "disposition": "Accepted as a constraint on the base naming layer, not as a new finding", "rationale": "RegOrg and CBV forbid storing a translation of the legal name in an alternative or trading name field. The base already separates name kinds and language tags but states no such prohibition, and a prohibition is a rule on an existing finding rather than a finding of its own." }, { "concept": "Grok functions", "disposition": "All six rejected as duplicative", "rationale": "resolve-identifier, record-legal-entity-event and validate-current-standing map one-to-one onto the base's resolve-organization-identifier, assert-lifecycle-event and evaluate-record-standing; syndicate-directory-card and disclose-registry-extract are scoped emissions already covered by publish-projection; construct-succession-lineage is the read side of evaluate-succession-continuity and the lineage view publish-projection already names. No function addition would add capability." }, { "concept": "Statistical unit alignment", "disposition": "Retained from base; no Grok equivalent", "rationale": "Grok has no counterpart to the Eurostat business-register distinction between legal unit, enterprise and enterprise group, nor to the prohibition on using statistical units to merge or split organization records. This is a base-only strength that the synthesis must preserve intact." }, { "concept": "schema.org source classification disagreement", "disposition": "Normalised to non-primary discovery tier", "rationale": "The base records schema.org as a primary source at authority tier 2 while Grok records it as non-primary at tier 3. Grok's classification is the defensible one for a community vocabulary used as a discovery mapping, and both models already treat it as alignment rather than conformance." }, { "concept": "Security dimension", "disposition": "Retained as a declared gap", "rationale": "The base marks transport security, authentication, key management and integrity signing as deliberately unmodelled because no cited primary source governs them at the semantic layer. Grok asserts no structure there either, so the honest declared gap is carried forward rather than papered over." } ], "publicationHolds": [ "Source and live-version verification is incomplete and must be run before publication: every accepted source URL must be re-fetched and its version pin confirmed. The two providers cite different GLEIF URL paths for the same two documents (LEI-CDF 3.1 under /common-data-file-format/current-versions/ versus /common-data-file-format/, and the ELF list under /code-lists/ versus the bare path), so at least one variant in each pair is stale or a redirect and the canonical form must be established.", "Multi-profile domain validation has not been performed. The structure must be exercised against at least six distinct profiles before publication: a registered company with an LEI, an unregistered informal collective with no scheme identifier, an international branch holding its own LEI without separate legal personality, a fund with an umbrella and management relationship, a resident government entity formed by statute, and a sole proprietor whose legal person is a natural person. Coverage claims are provisional until each profile is walked end to end.", "The EUID and BRIS provisions carried by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1042 were surfaced from indexed EUR-Lex text rather than a full-text read, by the base provider's own admission. The EUID-specific data element must be treated as provisional and verified against the Official Journal before any normative reliance.", "FATF Recommendations 24 and 25 were unreachable (HTTP 403), so the beneficial-ownership structure rests on BODS at authority tier 2 rather than on the intergovernmental requirement it implements. The ownership layer must be re-grounded before it is published as an authority-backed structure.", "The base naming finding asks which single name form is the legal name, which is wrong for multilingual jurisdictions where RegOrg and SEMIC CBV make legalName a repeatable language-tagged literal with several co-equal legal names. The naming layer must be reframed to admit multiple co-equal legal names, with the RegOrg prohibition on storing translations in alternative-name fields, before that layer is published as normative.", "ISO 17442-1:2020 and ISO 20275 were cited from standards-catalogue landing pages, not normative text. Any statement in the synthesized model that reads as a conformance or eligibility rule derived from those standards must be marked alignment-only until the normative text is obtained.", "ISO 5009 is carried by the base as a tier-1 primary source for official organizational roles while the other provider records it as discovered but not fetched. The official-roles finding's specific claims (role counts, jurisdiction coverage, tie to ELF, exclusion of internal functional titles) must be confirmed against the fetched code list before publication." ], "deferredResearch": [ "ISO 17442-1:2020 normative text, to ground LEI eligibility (whether the subject can enter contracts or is legally or financially responsible) and LEI exclusivity and non-reassignment as evidenced constraints. If confirmed, re-open the deferred grok finding lei-and-global-schemes for placement in the identifier-schemes-and-keys layer.", "Cross-border redomiciliation and continuation, and restoration after administrative strike-off, as event types. Both providers independently record that no primary cross-jurisdictional schema exists, so these currently sit as event hooks with no code list; find whether any regional instrument (EU mobility directive, US continuance statutes) supplies a citable vocabulary.", "NAICS from a first-party Bureau source, and the NAICS-to-ISIC correspondence. North American activity classification is a known regional omission and the activity layer is currently European-weighted through NACE.", "Core Public Organisation Vocabulary as the specialised public-body profile, to test whether the government and international-organization subjects currently handled through the GLEIF entity category and subcategory need their own evidenced structure.", "Organizational digital-identity credentials (verifiable credentials, organizational wallets, vLEI role credentials). Not verifiable from either retrieval pass and would need its own evidenced layer rather than being folded into identifier schemes.", "Series LLCs, protected-cell companies and comparable internal liability partitions, and DAOs or smart-contract collectives without a register or contract capacity. These stress the formality spectrum and the legal-personality flag and are currently recorded as gaps by both providers.", "Whether the ownership and control layer should remain in WM-ORG-001 as organization-side endpoints or move to a dedicated relationship sibling once that model is registered. Re-test the seam at sibling registration time rather than pre-emptively splitting now." ] }, "statistics": { "sources": 22, "bundles": 6, "layers": 13, "findings": 33, "questions": 128, "artifacts": 24, "functions": 11 } }