Institutional-design proposal · Public edition

Standards Body Partnership Principles

Version 1.0 · Released July 17, 2026 · Current

Research basis reviewed through July 16, 2026

Document status: Approved foundational source

This is the public edition of a canonical Standards Body institutional-design document. It is research and a design proposal for a possible future institution. It governs Standards Body’s own conduct where applicable, but it is not a description of a current operating standards, assurance, accreditation, certification, partnership, or contributor program, and Standards Body does not currently operate one.

Document record and authority notice

Project: Standards Body
Primary domain: standardsbody.ai
Core line: Foundations for Frontier AI
Document type: Canonical partnership-governance, due-diligence, independence, public-interest, funding, data, intellectual-property, security, branding, transparency, monitoring, and exit framework
Version: 1.0
Status: Approved foundational source
Document owner: Standards Body
Present institutional stage: Independent foundational research and institutional design
Applies to: Research collaborations, standards liaisons, government relationships, evaluator and accreditation relationships, industry collaborations, model-access agreements, civil-society partnerships, academic partnerships, philanthropic funding relationships, international cooperation, regional partnerships, technical infrastructure arrangements, data-sharing agreements, joint publications, public-interest collaborations, vendors, contractors, sponsors, and future institutional alliances
Related canonical sources: PROJECT_IDENTITY.md, PROJECT_MANIFESTO.md, INSTITUTION_DESIGN.md, GOVERNANCE_FRAMEWORK.md, STANDARDS_DEVELOPMENT_PROCESS.md, EVALUATOR_ACCREDITATION_FRAMEWORK.md, TRANSPARENCY_FRAMEWORK.md, CONTRIBUTOR_FRAMEWORK.md, WEBSITE_SOURCE_OF_TRUTH.md, SOURCES.md, VERSION_HISTORY.md, TERMINOLOGY.md, TAXONOMY.md, EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md, RESEARCH_METHODOLOGY.md, EVALUATION_PHILOSOPHY.md, FOUNDATIONS.md, FOUNDATIONS_APPENDIX.md, and the eight foundation papers
Research basis reviewed through: July 16, 2026
Review cycle: Annual complete review, quarterly material-partnership review, and event-triggered revision after a material partnership incident, authority change, funding conflict, standards-process change, security failure, human-rights concern, legal change, international-recognition change, or institutional-stage transition

Authority Note

This document governs how Standards Body should evaluate, approve, describe, operate, monitor, correct, renew, and end partnerships.

It does not establish that:

Standards Body is authorized to represent any partner
a partner is authorized to represent Standards Body
a partnership creates endorsement
a partnership creates membership
a partnership creates certification
a partnership creates accreditation
a partnership creates legal recognition
a partnership creates governmental authority
a partnership creates an international mandate
participation creates consensus
funding creates ownership
model access creates evaluation independence
a memorandum of understanding creates binding public authority
a logo exchange creates institutional equivalence
a liaison relationship creates voting rights
a research collaboration creates approval of the partner's products, policies, or conduct
a government relationship converts Standards Body into a public authority
a standards relationship converts Standards Body into a formally recognized standards-development organization
a relationship with an accreditation body makes Standards Body an accreditation body
a relationship with an evaluator makes Standards Body an evaluator
a relationship with a developer validates the developer's safety claims

Standards Body remains an independent research and institutional-design project unless a lawful, competence-based, transparently governed, and publicly recorded transition establishes a different role.

Every partnership should preserve that boundary.

Where a partner's public description conflicts with the approved relationship, Standards Body should require correction.

If correction is not made promptly, Standards Body should suspend use of its name, mark, or affiliation and consider termination.

Canonical Partnership Position

A partnership should exist only when it advances a defined public-interest purpose that neither party could achieve as well alone, while preserving independent judgment, bounded authority, transparent roles, lawful information handling, and a credible right to disagree, correct, suspend, and exit.

The defining partnership rule is:

Collaborate on the work without surrendering the judgment.

Document Purpose

This framework establishes the complete partnership system for Standards Body.

It defines:

What constitutes a partnership
what does not constitute endorsement
partner categories
relationship types
partnership tiers
authority and approval
eligibility
due diligence
mission alignment
public-interest review
human-rights due diligence
independence
conflict-of-interest control
funding
resource contributions
government relationships
standards relationships
evaluator, certification, and accreditation relationships
developer and model-provider relationships
academic and research relationships
civil-society and affected-community relationships
international and regional cooperation
philanthropic relationships
open-source and technical-community relationships
vendor and contractor relationships
data sharing
model and system access
intellectual property
publication rights
confidentiality
security
privacy
branding
logos and marks
public statements
joint governance
decision rights
agreements
antitrust and competition
anti-corruption
sanctions and export controls
political independence
accessibility
language and regional equity
monitoring
complaints
incidents
corrections
renewal
suspension
termination
post-exit obligations
records
public registries
metrics
audits
failure modes
implementation
operational templates

The framework is designed for an institution whose value depends on credible independence.

Standards Body may need partners to obtain:

Technical expertise
model access
protected evidence
evaluator capacity
standards coordination
legal knowledge
international participation
regional understanding
public-interest representation
research funding
computing infrastructure
implementation experience
archival continuity
translation
accessibility
dissemination

Those resources can strengthen the work.

They can also distort it.

A model provider may offer access while controlling publication.

A funder may support independence while shaping priorities.

A government may provide recognition while creating political pressure.

A standards organization may offer legitimacy while limiting participation.

An evaluator may provide expertise while benefiting from the requirements being drafted.

A civil-society organization may provide affected-party knowledge while carrying advocacy commitments.

An academic institution may provide expertise while lacking operational continuity.

An international partner may expand reach while creating false claims of global representation.

Partnership governance should not assume that one category is inherently independent or compromised.

It should examine the actual relationship.

Executive Summary

Standards Body should build a network, not a dependency chain.

Partnerships are necessary because frontier AI standards, evaluation, assurance, and governance cannot be developed credibly by one institution acting alone.

The required capabilities are distributed across:

Research institutions
governments
standards organizations
evaluators
accreditation bodies
certification bodies
developers
cloud and infrastructure providers
civil society
affected communities
labor
professional associations
philanthropy
international institutions
regional organizations
open-source communities

A partnership can improve:

Evidence
competence
implementation
interoperability
legitimacy
access
capacity
geographic coverage
language coverage
accountability

A partnership can also create:

Capture
authority inflation
logo laundering
funder dependence
access dependence
publication control
data misuse
intellectual-property lock-in
exclusion
anticompetitive coordination
political influence
security exposure
reputational contagion
false endorsement

The purpose of this framework is to permit useful collaboration while preventing those harms.

Partnership Is Not One Relationship Type

The word partner is too broad to govern responsibly.

Standards Body should identify the exact relationship.

Examples:

Research collaborator
standards liaison
model-access provider
data provider
evaluator collaborator
accreditation liaison
public-interest advisor
funder
sponsor
infrastructure provider
contractor
memorandum party
implementation pilot host
government advisor
regional convening partner
translation partner
publication collaborator
joint-project participant

Each relationship creates different rights, risks, and public meanings.

Material Partnership Test

A relationship is material when it could reasonably affect:

Standards Body's mission
institutional authority
public credibility
research priorities
standards outcomes
evaluation independence
funding concentration
access to frontier systems
confidential information
security
intellectual property
international representation
public claims
affected communities
the ability to exit

Material partnerships require enhanced review and public disclosure.

Core Partnership Requirements

Every material partnership should have:

A defined public-interest purpose
a precise relationship type
approved authority
due diligence
conflict review
funding disclosure
decision-rights boundaries
publication rights
data and intellectual-property terms
security and privacy controls
brand and public-claims rules
monitoring
complaint and incident routes
termination rights
post-exit obligations
a public summary

No Implied Endorsement

A partnership should not imply that:

Standards Body endorses every activity of the partner
the partner endorses every Standards Body position
the parties have merged
the partner can speak for Standards Body
Standards Body has approved a partner's AI system
a government has delegated authority
an international institution has recognized Standards Body
an evaluator is accredited
a developer's claims are independently verified

Developer and Model-Provider Partnerships

Relationships with frontier AI developers require enhanced review because access can become leverage.

The agreement should state:

Which system is accessible
which version
which access mode
which restrictions
who controls task design
whether publication is independent
whether factual review is allowed
whether approval rights exist
what happens after adverse findings
whether access can be withdrawn
whether unrelated access can be threatened
whether funding is provided
whether personnel are shared
whether results may be used in marketing

The developer may review reports for:

Confidentiality
security
factual system identity
technical errors

The developer should not control:

Conclusions
scoring
evidence interpretation
publication solely because findings are unfavorable
correction of independently supported criticism

Government Partnerships

A government relationship should identify whether it is:

Informal consultation
research
advisory
contractual
procurement
grant funded
recognized
delegated
regulatory
enforcement related

Standards Body should not describe a government relationship in terms suggesting legal authority unless the authority actually exists.

Standards Relationships

Standards Body should cooperate with standards organizations to reduce duplication and improve interoperability.

Liaison status should be described according to the actual procedural rights.

Participation in an ISO, IEC, national, regional, or other standards process does not automatically establish:

Voting rights
consensus
adoption
recognition
ownership
international-standard status

The ISO/IEC Directives distinguish members, delegates, experts, and liaison organizations, and provide specific conditions for participation.[^iso-directives]

Human Rights and Affected Parties

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights emphasize human-rights due diligence, meaningful engagement, and remedy.[^ungp]

Partnership due diligence should examine whether the relationship may:

Cause adverse impact
contribute to adverse impact
become directly linked to adverse impact
obstruct affected-party participation
expose human-rights defenders
create retaliation
deny remedy

A technically useful partnership should not proceed unchanged where severe public-interest harms remain unaddressed.

International Standards Principles

The WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Committee's principles for international standards include:

Transparency
openness
impartiality and consensus
effectiveness and relevance
coherence
the development dimension[^wto-six]

These principles should guide Standards Body's standards partnerships.

They should not be used to claim that Standards Body is already an international standardizing body.

Funding

Funding should purchase defined work or support the mission.

It should not purchase:

Conclusions
standards outcomes
favorable evaluation
governance seats
permanent veto
publication approval
privileged complaint treatment
concealed agenda control

Exit

A partnership without a credible exit right can become an institutional dependency.

Agreements should permit suspension or termination after:

Mission conflict
interference
corruption
misconduct
human-rights harm
security failure
false public claims
concealed conflict
unlawful activity
retaliation
repeated failure to correct

Exit should protect:

Records
evidence
contributors
affected parties
published work
correction rights
confidential information
continuity

Final Partnership Proposition

The strongest partnership is not the closest institutional association. It is the relationship in which each party's role is precise, each contribution is useful, each conflict is governed, each public claim is bounded, and each party remains free to report the truth and leave.

1. Foundational Partnership Principles

1.1 Mission Before Opportunity

A prestigious or well-funded opportunity should not override mission.

1.2 Public Purpose

Every material partnership should identify the public-interest outcome it is intended to advance.

1.3 Bounded Relationship

The relationship should be described by actual function, not a broad prestige label.

1.4 Independent Judgment

No partner should control Standards Body's technical, evidentiary, editorial, or governance conclusions beyond legitimate agreed procedures.

1.5 No Implied Endorsement

Collaboration on one activity does not imply approval of all activities.

1.6 Authority Precision

A partnership should not imply legal, governmental, standards, certification, accreditation, or international authority that does not exist.

1.7 Reciprocity Without Equivalence

Parties may exchange access, expertise, funding, or recognition without becoming institutionally equivalent.

1.8 Proportionate Due Diligence

Review should scale with consequence, dependence, sensitivity, duration, and public meaning.

1.9 Human-Rights Responsibility

Technical value does not excuse foreseeable severe harm.

1.10 Conflict Visibility

Material interests should be disclosed and governed.

1.11 Publication Integrity

Partners may correct factual errors and protect legitimate secrets.

They should not suppress supported conclusions.

1.12 Data and Security Discipline

Access to data or systems should be lawful, necessary, controlled, and reviewable.

1.13 Intellectual Independence

Funding and access should not create ownership of institutional positions.

1.14 Nonexclusivity by Default

Exclusive relationships require strong public-interest justification.

1.15 Correctable Public Claims

Misleading partner descriptions should be corrected promptly.

1.16 Time-Bounded Commitment

Material partnerships should have review, renewal, and exit dates.

1.17 Partnership Pluralism

Standards Body should avoid dependence on one government, developer, evaluator, funder, region, or intellectual tradition.

1.18 Affected-Party Voice

People affected by the work should have meaningful routes to inform, challenge, and seek remedy.

1.19 Lawful Cooperation

Partnerships should comply with applicable law, including competition, anti-corruption, sanctions, export control, privacy, employment, and intellectual-property obligations.

1.20 Preserved History

The partnership record should remain available after the relationship ends.

2. Scope and Non-Claims

2.1 Covered Relationships

Formal partnerships
memoranda of understanding
joint projects
research collaborations
standards liaisons
grants
sponsorships
data-sharing arrangements
model-access agreements
infrastructure arrangements
evaluator collaborations
government advisory relationships
international cooperation
regional hubs
implementation pilots
joint publications
vendor relationships with material institutional effect

2.2 Ordinary Transactions

An ordinary purchase may not require partnership treatment.

It becomes partnership-like when it creates:

Public association
strategic dependence
joint governance
data sharing
confidential access
mission influence
branding
substantial funding
long duration

2.3 Contributor Relationships

Individual contributor roles are governed primarily by CONTRIBUTOR_FRAMEWORK.md.

An institutional contribution may also be a partnership.

2.4 Membership

Membership, participation, partnership, liaison, sponsorship, and service provision should remain distinct.

2.5 No Universal Partner Approval

Approval of one project does not approve future projects.

2.6 No Automatic Continuity

Renewal requires review.

2.7 No Rights Beyond Agreement

Partners receive only the rights explicitly granted.

2.8 No Hidden Authority

Private agreements should not create concealed public-governance authority.

3. Canonical Definitions

Definitions in TERMINOLOGY.md govern.

3.1 Partnership

A governed relationship in which two or more parties coordinate resources, expertise, access, activities, or public work toward a defined purpose.

3.2 Partner

An organization or institution party to an approved partnership.

The title should not be used for an ordinary vendor or informal contact unless the relationship warrants it.

3.3 Collaboration

Coordinated activity that may or may not constitute a formal partnership.

3.4 Liaison

A formally recognized communication or participation relationship with defined procedural rights.

3.5 Sponsor

A party providing money, resources, or services in support of an activity.

Sponsorship does not imply technical or editorial authority.

3.6 Funder

A party providing financial support.

3.7 Contractor

A party providing services under contract.

3.8 Vendor

A party selling goods or services.

3.9 Strategic Partner

A partner engaged in a relationship affecting multiple programs, institutional capabilities, public positioning, or long-term strategy.

This term requires enhanced approval.

3.10 Research Partner

A party collaborating on defined research.

3.11 Standards Partner

A party collaborating on standards development, liaison, coordination, implementation, or interoperability.

3.12 Evaluation Partner

A party collaborating on evaluation design, administration, access, review, or infrastructure.

3.13 Public-Interest Partner

A party contributing expertise, representation, affected-party knowledge, rights analysis, accountability, or remedy.

3.14 Government Partner

A public authority or governmental entity engaged in a defined relationship.

The exact authority category should be stated.

3.15 International Partner

A party operating across jurisdictions or established through an international legal or institutional framework.

The term does not imply international recognition of Standards Body.

3.16 Material Partnership

A partnership likely to affect mission, authority, funding, independence, public credibility, standards, evaluations, security, data, intellectual property, international representation, or affected parties.

3.17 Exclusive Partnership

A relationship limiting one or more parties from comparable relationships with others.

3.18 Partnership Due Diligence

The structured assessment of mission, authority, ownership, conduct, conflicts, funding, legal, rights, security, reputation, public claims, and exit risk before and during a relationship.

3.19 Partnership Capture

Improper influence over Standards Body's priorities, methods, governance, findings, standards, evaluation, publication, or public claims through a partnership.

3.20 Partner Claim Drift

Expansion of public claims beyond the agreed relationship.

3.21 Logo Laundering

Use of names, logos, marks, advisors, or institutional association to imply endorsement, approval, authority, or legitimacy beyond the actual relationship.

3.22 Access Dependence

Reliance on a partner for data, systems, infrastructure, funding, or permissions in a manner that can influence independent judgment.

3.23 Joint Work Product

An output created under a defined shared process with allocated authorship, ownership, review, approval, and publication rights.

3.24 Partnership Register

The structured public and internal record of material partnerships.

3.25 Partnership Incident

An event that may materially affect the integrity, legality, safety, independence, reputation, or continuation of a partnership.

4. Partnership Architecture

The Standards Body partnership system contains twelve linked layers.

4.1 Purpose Layer

Defines:

Public-interest objective
problem
expected outcome
affected parties
why partnership is necessary
why unilateral work is insufficient

4.2 Identity Layer

Defines:

Legal entities
organizational units
authorized representatives
ownership
affiliates
applicable jurisdictions

4.3 Relationship Layer

Defines the exact relationship type.

4.4 Authority Layer

Defines:

Who approved the relationship
who may bind each party
which decisions remain independent
which decisions are joint
which authority is absent

4.5 Contribution Layer

Defines:

Funding
staff
expertise
access
data
infrastructure
intellectual property
communications
implementation

4.6 Risk Layer

Assesses:

Conflict
capture
human rights
security
privacy
legal
financial
reputation
competition
continuity

4.7 Agreement Layer

Creates enforceable or documented terms proportionate to the relationship.

4.8 Operating Layer

Defines:

Governance
work plan
milestones
review
publication
incident handling
change control

4.9 Transparency Layer

Defines what should be published and what may remain protected.

4.10 Monitoring Layer

Tests whether the relationship remains aligned and independent.

4.11 Exit Layer

Defines:

Suspension
termination
records
data
intellectual property
public claims
continuity
post-exit obligations

4.12 Historical Layer

Preserves the complete relationship record.

4.13 Architecture Rule

A public announcement is not a partnership framework.

A memorandum is not sufficient if authority, data, funding, publication, or exit remain undefined.

5. Partner Categories

5.1 Government and Public Authorities

National governments
regional governments
local governments
regulators
public research institutes
government laboratories
procurement bodies
international public organizations

5.2 Standards Organizations

International standards organizations
national standards bodies
regional standards organizations
sector standards bodies
consortia
open standards communities

5.3 Evaluation and Assurance Institutions

Evaluation laboratories
red-team organizations
inspection bodies
audit bodies
certification bodies
accreditation bodies
proficiency-testing providers
peer-evaluation organizations

5.4 AI Developers and Deployers

Frontier AI laboratories
model providers
open-weight developers
cloud providers
application developers
enterprise deployers
sector-specific operators

5.5 Academic and Research Institutions

Universities
research centers
laboratories
scholarly societies
libraries
archives
research infrastructures

5.6 Civil Society and Public-Interest Organizations

Human-rights organizations
consumer organizations
labor organizations
disability organizations
environmental groups
community organizations
public-interest technology groups
advocacy organizations

5.7 Affected Communities

Workers
users
people subject to automated decisions
communities exposed to systemic risk
public-service recipients
domain professionals
local and Indigenous communities

5.8 Philanthropic and Funding Institutions

Foundations
public grant makers
research funders
pooled funds
donor-advised entities
mission-aligned investors

5.9 Professional and Technical Communities

Open-source communities
professional associations
technical forums
practitioner networks
incident-sharing communities
security researchers

5.10 Infrastructure and Service Providers

Cloud providers
data providers
secure facilities
software vendors
translation providers
accessibility providers
legal and accounting services
communications providers

5.11 Media and Public-Education Organizations

A media organization may collaborate on public education or events.

Editorial independence should remain explicit.

5.12 Mixed Organizations

An organization may occupy several categories.

Review should address each role separately.

6. Relationship Classification

6.1 Informal Exchange

Characteristics:

Information sharing
no ongoing commitment
no funding
no branding
no confidential access
no joint authority

Approval:

Operational owner

6.2 Consultation

Characteristics:

Advice or feedback
no decision rights
bounded purpose
possible attribution

Approval:

Program owner

6.3 Research Collaboration

Characteristics:

Shared research
defined methods
authorship
data
publication
intellectual property

Approval:

Research authority
enhanced review when material

6.4 Standards Liaison

Characteristics:

Formal or informal standards coordination
defined participation rights
no implied adoption
no implied voting rights

Approval:

Standards authority

6.5 Model or Data Access Relationship

Characteristics:

Access to systems, weights, interfaces, data, logs, or environments
confidentiality
security
publication risk
access dependence

Approval:

Technical, security, and governance review

6.6 Evaluation Collaboration

Characteristics:

Joint design, administration, review, replication, infrastructure, or protected-task work

Approval:

Evaluation authority
independence review

6.7 Funding Relationship

Characteristics:

Grant
donation
sponsorship
restricted project funding
in-kind contribution

Approval:

Funding authority
conflict review

6.8 Government Advisory Relationship

Characteristics:

Advice to a public institution
no delegated authority unless expressly provided
possible confidentiality and public-record implications

Approval:

Board or delegated executive, depending on materiality

6.9 Implementation Partnership

Characteristics:

Pilot
deployment study
standards implementation
training
capacity building
regional hub

Approval:

Program and operational authority

6.10 Strategic Partnership

Characteristics:

Multi-year
multi-program
high public visibility
significant funding or access
institutional or authority implications

Approval:

Governing Board

6.11 Vendor Relationship

Characteristics:

Service provision
no public co-ownership
no institutional status

Approval:

Procurement authority

A vendor should not be called a partner merely for marketing.

6.12 Exclusive Partnership

Characteristics:

Limits comparable work
creates dependency
may affect competition or participation

Approval:

Enhanced board review

6.13 Joint Venture or New Entity

Characteristics:

New legal vehicle
shared ownership
shared governance
liability
asset contribution
major authority implications

Approval:

Constitutional or M4-level review under VERSION_HISTORY.md

7. Partnership Tiers

Tier P0: Contact

No partnership.

Examples:

Meeting
conference exchange
introduction
source sharing

Tier P1: Bounded Collaboration

Examples:

One workshop
one consultation
one joint event
limited expert exchange

Requirements:

Defined purpose
owner
public-claims rules
basic conflict check

Tier P2: Program Partnership

Examples:

Research project
standards liaison
pilot
translation program
regional project

Requirements:

Written agreement
due diligence
conflict review
publication terms
data and intellectual-property terms
monitoring
exit

Tier P3: Material Strategic Partnership

Examples:

Multi-year institutional relationship
major funder
frontier developer access
government program
standards or assurance infrastructure
regional institutional hub

Requirements:

Enhanced due diligence
board approval
public summary
annual review
concentration analysis
independent monitoring
termination plan

Tier P4: Authority-Shaping or Entity-Forming Relationship

Examples:

Delegated public function
formal regulatory role
new joint institution
international recognition arrangement
exclusive standards or accreditation function
merger-like structure

Requirements:

Constitutional review
legal analysis
public consultation where appropriate
independent review
formal transition
identity update
version-history record

7.1 Tier Review

A relationship should be reclassified when its scope, funding, access, duration, branding, or authority changes.

7.2 No Tier Inflation

A high tier is not a prestige label.

It indicates governance burden and consequence.

8. Partnership Authority and Approval

8.1 Governing Board Reserved Matters

The Governing Board should approve:

P3 and P4 relationships
exclusive partnerships
government relationships implying recognition or authority
partnerships affecting standards independence
partnerships affecting accreditation or certification
relationships creating a new entity
material model-provider relationships
major restricted funding
relationships creating significant public-risk exposure
partnership termination likely to affect institutional continuity

8.2 Executive Authority

The executive may approve:

P1 and P2 relationships within delegation
ordinary research collaborations
routine vendors
implementation pilots
nonmaterial liaisons

8.3 Program Authority

Program leaders may propose but should not unilaterally approve a material relationship involving their own funding or access dependence.

8.4 Specialist Review

Required as relevant:

Legal
standards
research
evaluation
security
privacy
human rights
finance
competition
international
communications

8.5 Conflict Review

Decision makers with material partner relationships should recuse or receive documented controls.

8.6 Authority Record

Every material approval should identify:

Decision authority
delegation
date
scope
conditions
dissent
review date
termination authority

8.7 No Retroactive Approval

Work should not begin before necessary approval except under documented emergency authority.

8.8 Public Approval Claim

A board-approved partnership does not imply board endorsement of the partner generally.

9. Partnership Intake

9.1 Intake Record

Capture:

Proposed partner
legal entity
relationship type
purpose
expected contribution
requested rights
funding
data
intellectual property
access
branding
duration
geographic scope
affected parties
urgency
proposer

9.2 Identity Verification

Verify:

Legal name
registration
ownership
governance
authorized representative
affiliates
sanctions status where relevant
official contact

9.3 Duplicate and Existing Relationship Check

Identify:

Prior agreements
active collaborations
disputes
funding
contributor roles
standards relationships
public claims
conflicts

9.4 Preliminary Screening

Screen for:

Mission fit
authority inflation
serious misconduct
corruption
human-rights risk
security risk
illegal purpose
severe conflict
unmanageable exclusivity

9.5 Intake Outcome

Proceed
proceed with conditions
request information
escalate
defer
decline
prohibit

9.6 No Relationship by Announcement

A relationship should not be announced before approval and agreement.

10. Partnership Due Diligence

10.1 Proportionality

Due diligence should scale with:

Tier
funding
duration
authority
data
security
public visibility
dependence
affected-party risk
jurisdiction
exclusivity

10.2 Core Review Domains

Identity and Ownership

Legal entity
beneficial ownership
affiliates
control
governance

Mission and Conduct

Stated mission
actual activity
public record
controversies
corrections
accountability

Authority

Legal mandate
regulatory role
standards role
accreditation role
certification role
ability to bind

Financial

Funding
solvency
concentration
restrictions
conflicts
sustainability

Human Rights

Actual and potential impacts
affected communities
remedy
retaliation
defenders
labor
discrimination

Technical

Competence
methods
security
system access
claims
incidents
quality

Legal and Regulatory

Compliance
sanctions
export controls
litigation
enforcement
procurement restrictions
competition

Security and Privacy

Information security
data governance
breach history
access
vendors
jurisdiction

Public Claims

Marketing
logos
authority statements
correction history
representation

Exit

Dependency
records
data
continuity
public communication
post-exit restrictions

10.3 Evidence Sources

Use:

Official records
audited financials where available
policies
public filings
legal decisions
regulatory records
independent reporting
references
technical evidence
interviews
direct disclosure

10.4 Adverse Information

Adverse information should be:

Verified
contextualized
assessed for severity
connected to the proposed relationship
reviewed for correction
disclosed to decision makers

10.5 No Reputation Shortcut

Prestige does not replace due diligence.

10.6 No Category Presumption

Government, nonprofit, academic, industry, and civil-society status do not establish trust automatically.

10.7 Partner Response

The proposed partner may respond to material concerns.

10.8 Due-Diligence Outcome

Approved
approved with conditions
enhanced monitoring
limited scope
independent oversight
deferred
declined
prohibited

10.9 Review Date

Material due diligence should be refreshed during the relationship.

11. Mission and Public-Interest Fit

11.1 Mission Test

The relationship should advance one or more legitimate functions:

Research
evidence
standards
evaluation
assurance
interoperability
capacity
public understanding
affected-party participation
institutional development

11.2 Necessity Test

Ask:

Why is this partner needed?
Is another arrangement safer?
Can the work be performed independently?
Does the partner control an essential resource?
Is dependence temporary or structural?

11.3 Public-Benefit Test

Identify:

Beneficiaries
expected benefit
distribution
risk
public output
access
accountability

11.4 Mission Drift

Reject or narrow relationships that primarily advance:

Marketing
partner legitimacy
private market advantage
political prestige
product launch
exclusive access
revenue unrelated to mission

11.5 Institutional Capacity

A valuable relationship may still be declined if Standards Body lacks capacity to govern it.

11.6 Opportunity Cost

Consider what the partnership displaces.

11.7 Reassessment

Mission fit should be reviewed after material change.

12. Human Rights and Affected-Party Due Diligence

12.1 Human-Rights Baseline

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights distinguish state duties, organizational responsibility to respect rights, and access to remedy.[^ungp]

Standards Body should use that architecture as a minimum partnership lens.

12.2 Impact Relationships

Assess whether Standards Body may:

Cause adverse impact
contribute to adverse impact
become directly linked through a partner relationship

12.3 Salience

Prioritize severe risks based on:

Scale
scope
irremediability
likelihood
vulnerability
time sensitivity

12.4 Affected-Party Engagement

Meaningful engagement should be:

Timely
accessible
safe
informed
culturally competent
nonretaliatory
capable of changing the decision

12.5 Human-Rights Defenders

Review whether the relationship may expose or silence:

Researchers
whistleblowers
workers
journalists
community advocates
civil-society participants

OHCHR guidance emphasizes the role of human-rights defenders in due diligence and understanding affected-stakeholder concerns.[^hrd-guidance]

12.6 Remedy

The agreement should not prevent:

Complaint
correction
lawful disclosure
investigation
remediation
access to external remedy

12.7 Severe Harm

A relationship should not proceed unchanged where severe harm cannot be prevented or mitigated credibly.

12.8 Public-Interest Dissent

Partners should not condition access or funding on silence concerning legitimate public-interest criticism.

12.9 Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups

Review differential impacts.

12.10 Rights Record

Document:

Risks
affected groups
engagement
controls
unresolved harm
monitoring
remedy
decision

13. Independence and Capture Controls

13.1 Independence Dimensions

Assess:

Governance independence
financial independence
methodological independence
informational independence
operational independence
publication independence
personnel independence
security independence
political independence

13.2 Capture Pathways

A partner may influence Standards Body through:

Funding
privileged access
employment
board appointments
standards participation
data control
infrastructure
legal pressure
public endorsement
future contracts
media access
exclusive technical knowledge
withdrawal threats

13.3 Dependency Register

Material dependencies should identify:

Resource
partner
duration
alternatives
switching cost
effect of withdrawal
mitigation
owner
review date

13.4 Diversification

Standards Body should avoid material dependence on one:

Developer
government
funder
evaluator
cloud provider
region
standards organization
data source
intellectual tradition

13.5 Independent Workstream Control

Partnership-funded work should preserve:

Research question integrity
method choice
evidence standards
reviewer independence
publication rights
correction authority
dissent

13.6 Access Leverage

An access provider should not condition unrelated access on favorable treatment.

13.7 Governance Seat

A partner should not receive a governing seat solely because it contributes money, systems, or prestige.

13.8 Veto

No partner should receive a permanent veto over:

Standards
findings
publication
correction
complaints
termination
institutional identity

13.9 Capture Response

Controls may include:

Recusal
independent reviewer
parallel evidence pathway
scope reduction
funding diversification
public disclosure
alternative provider
suspension
termination

13.10 Capture Audit

P3 and P4 relationships should receive periodic capture review.

14. Conflicts of Interest

14.2 Institutional Conflict

A conflict may exist even when no individual is personally conflicted.

14.3 Partner Disclosure

A material partner should disclose relevant:

Ownership
funders
clients
affiliates
litigation
regulatory matters
standards interests
evaluator interests
product interests
lobbying
political roles

subject to lawful limits.

14.4 Standards Conflict

A party benefiting from a requirement should not control the requirement's development.

Participation may remain appropriate with balance, disclosure, consensus protections, and public review.

14.5 Evaluation Conflict

A developer should not control an independent evaluation of its own system.

14.6 Funding Conflict

A funder should not control findings.

14.7 Government Conflict

A government may have legitimate policy authority and political interests.

Both should be visible.

14.8 Civil-Society Conflict

Advocacy commitments should be disclosed without treating advocacy as disqualifying automatically.

14.9 Conflict Controls

Disclosure
recusal
balanced representation
independent review
separate decision authority
method preregistration
public comment
audit
publication of dissent
refusal

14.10 Unmanageable Conflict

The relationship should not proceed where controls cannot preserve credible independence.

15. Funding and Resource Contributions

15.1 Funding Purpose

Funding should support defined public-interest work.

15.2 Funding Types

Unrestricted support
restricted grant
project contract
sponsorship
in-kind contribution
secondment
compute credit
data access
model access
event support
pooled fund

15.3 Funding Record

Record:

Funder
amount or value
purpose
restrictions
duration
payment schedule
reporting
publication rights
ownership
refund
termination
conflicts

15.4 Prohibited Funding Conditions

Predetermined conclusion
favorable standard
favorable evaluation
publication veto
concealed attribution
retaliation
permanent governance right
preferential complaint outcome
unsupported endorsement
exclusive regulator access

15.5 Funder Concentration

Apply the institutional concentration limits in INSTITUTION_DESIGN.md and GOVERNANCE_FRAMEWORK.md.

15.6 In-Kind Valuation

Estimate the fair value and dependence created by:

Compute
software
data
staff
facilities
travel
legal services
communications
model access

15.7 Restricted Funding

Restricted funding should not create hidden control of the institutional research agenda.

15.8 Unspent Funds

Define treatment after completion or termination.

15.9 Financial Reporting

Publish material funding at the level required by TRANSPARENCY_FRAMEWORK.md.

15.10 Funding Exit

Standards Body should maintain enough operational resilience to reject improper influence.

16. Government and Public-Authority Relationships

16.1 Relationship Classification

State whether the government relationship is:

Consultation
advisory
research
grant
contract
procurement
pilot
standards coordination
recognized role
delegated function
regulatory function
enforcement support

16.2 Authority Source

Identify:

Statute
regulation
executive authority
contract
memorandum
procurement
informal request
no legal authority

16.3 No Authority Inflation

Do not use:

Government-backed
official partner
regulator-approved
designated standards body
public authority

unless the precise basis supports the claim.

16.4 Government Direction

A government may define lawful contractual objectives.

It should not covertly control independent research conclusions or standards consensus.

16.5 Public Records

Government partnerships may create:

Public-record obligations
procurement disclosures
audit
lobbying rules
records retention
national-security controls
accessibility duties

16.6 Political Neutrality

Standards Body should cooperate across lawful administrations without becoming a partisan instrument.

16.7 Law Enforcement and Security Agencies

Enhanced review should address:

Legal basis
human rights
surveillance
secrecy
dual use
affected parties
remedy
publication
mission fit

16.8 Government Funding

Disclose:

Agency
program
amount
restrictions
deliverables
publication rights
political or legal conditions

16.9 Delegated Function

A delegated function requires:

Valid legal basis
clear scope
governance
competence
accountability
appeal
public notice
identity update
version-history record

16.10 International Government Cooperation

Avoid implying representation of governments not party to the relationship.

17. Standards-Organization Relationships

17.1 Purpose

Standards cooperation should reduce duplication, improve coherence, and enable interoperability.

17.2 Relationship Types

Informal coordination
liaison
joint working group
technical contribution
standards adoption
referencing
implementation mapping
joint publication
secretariat support

17.3 Procedural Rights

State whether Standards Body may:

Attend
submit documents
nominate experts
participate in working groups
comment
vote
observe
receive documents
publish liaison reports

17.4 ISO and IEC Liaisons

The ISO/IEC Directives establish formal categories and criteria for liaison participation.[^iso-directives]

A liaison should be described by its actual category and rights.

17.5 WTO Principles

Standards partnerships should support:

Transparency
openness
impartiality and consensus
effectiveness and relevance
coherence
development dimension[^wto-six]

17.6 No Standards-Status Inflation

A joint project does not make its output an international standard.

17.7 Coherence Review

Before launching work, identify:

Existing standards
active projects
national work
regional work
consortia
potential conflict
opportunity for liaison

17.8 Normative References

Partnership agreements should not force proprietary or inaccessible references without justification.

17.9 Joint Standards Work

Define:

Lead body
process
voting
public review
copyright
publication
maintenance
appeals
withdrawal
legal status

17.10 Competition

Standards collaboration should avoid exclusionary agreements and anticompetitive conduct.

18. Evaluator, Certification, and Accreditation Relationships

18.1 Evaluator Relationship

Possible purposes:

Method development
pilot evaluation
replication
proficiency testing
secure infrastructure
independent review
assessor training

18.2 Independence

An evaluator partner should not control Standards Body criteria that determine its own market status.

18.3 Accreditation Relationship

A relationship with an accreditation body may support:

Criteria mapping
readiness pilots
assessor competence
scheme development
international recognition analysis

It does not make Standards Body an accreditation body.

18.4 Certification Relationship

A certification-body partnership should define:

Scheme
object
decision authority
evaluation evidence
conflicts
marks
public claims

18.5 Market Advantage

Standards Body should avoid giving one evaluator exclusive early access to criteria without a public-interest reason and fair pathway.

18.6 Pilot Participation

Pilot status should not imply accreditation or certification.

18.7 Result Independence

Evaluator partners should preserve the ability to issue adverse findings.

18.8 Shared Methods

Define:

Ownership
licensing
validation
changes
publication
security
commercial use

18.9 Registry

Material assurance relationships should appear in the partnership register.

18.10 Role Separation

Standards Body should not simultaneously:

Develop exclusive criteria
sell evaluation
accredit the evaluator
certify the client
decide appeals

without independent institutional separation.

19. AI Developer and Model-Provider Relationships

19.1 Enhanced Risk

Developer relationships can create unusually high dependence because the developer may control:

Model access
system information
logs
privileged interfaces
weights
safeguards
publication timing
repeat access
funding
technical staff

19.2 Required Agreement Fields

Legal entity
system and version
access mode
duration
rate limits
tools
safeguards
logs
data
security
publication
factual review
findings
corrections
termination
post-access verification

19.3 Evaluation Independence

The developer may not control:

Task design where independence is claimed
scoring
threshold interpretation
reviewer selection
final conclusions
publication solely due to unfavorable findings

19.4 Factual Review

A developer may review:

System identity
technical factual errors
confidential information
security-sensitive details
legal restrictions

Factual review should have:

Defined duration
no silence-based veto
recorded comments
independent disposition

19.5 Access Withdrawal

The agreement should state:

Grounds
notice
immediate-risk exception
effect on current work
publication
records
re-evaluation
public disclosure

19.6 Unrelated Access Leverage

A developer should not condition unrelated access on favorable treatment in another project.

19.7 Product Launch Timing

Standards Body should not coordinate findings primarily to support a launch.

Legitimate security embargo may be used.

19.8 Marketing

The developer may not use the relationship to imply:

Approval
certification
safety
regulatory recognition
endorsement
successful independent evaluation

unless exact evidence supports the claim.

19.9 Developer Funding

Funding and access should be disclosed together.

19.10 Multiple Developers

Where feasible, work across several developers to reduce dependence and improve comparative validity.

19.11 Open-Weight Developer

Review:

Weight license
distribution
fine-tuning
downstream control
version identity
community governance
safeguard claims

19.12 Deployment Partner

A deployer relationship should address real-world monitoring, incident evidence, user impact, and correction.

20. Academic and Research Partnerships

20.1 Strengths

Academic partners may provide:

Expertise
peer review
laboratories
students
archives
research ethics
disciplinary breadth

20.2 Risks

Short-term grants
personnel turnover
publication pressure
prestige incentives
institutional ownership
weak operational continuity
student vulnerability
conflicts with sponsors
slow contracting

20.3 Research Governance

Define:

Protocol
ethics
data
authorship
preregistration
publication
review
correction
participant protection
security

20.4 Students and Trainees

Protect:

Consent
supervision
compensation
credit
academic freedom
whistleblowing
career interests
security

20.5 Academic Freedom

The relationship should preserve lawful scholarly criticism.

20.6 Institutional Review

Human-participant and sensitive research should receive appropriate ethics review.

20.7 Publication Timing

Avoid indefinite delay.

20.8 University Branding

Use of a university name should not imply institutional endorsement unless authorized.

20.9 Intellectual Property

University policies should be reviewed before work begins.

20.10 Continuity

Plan for:

Principal investigator departure
student graduation
grant end
laboratory closure
record custody

21. Civil-Society and Affected-Community Partnerships

21.1 Purpose

These relationships should improve:

Rights analysis
lived-experience evidence
public accountability
accessibility
remedy
legitimacy
implementation

21.2 No Symbolic Inclusion

A partner should have meaningful influence appropriate to the work.

21.3 Representation

An organization should not be treated as representing every member of a community without a mandate.

21.4 Compensation

Budget for:

Time
preparation
accessibility
translation
travel
childcare
technical support
security

21.5 Power Imbalance

Standards Body should not require communities to disclose sensitive information merely to be heard.

21.6 Safety

Protect participants from:

Retaliation
harassment
exposure
employment harm
legal risk
online abuse

21.7 Evidence Status

Lived experience should be represented accurately under EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md.

21.8 Advocacy Independence

A civil-society partner should remain free to criticize Standards Body.

21.9 Public Claims

Do not imply community endorsement from participation.

21.10 Remedy

Provide complaint and correction routes.

22. International and Regional Partnerships

22.1 Purpose

International cooperation should support:

Interoperability
local relevance
regional competence
multilingual work
cross-border evidence
capacity
mutual learning

22.2 No Global Representation Claim

A small group of international partners does not constitute global consensus.

22.3 Regional Authority

Identify whether the partner is:

Governmental
intergovernmental
standards
academic
civil society
industry
regional network

22.4 Local Expertise

International work should include:

Local law
language
institutions
culture
infrastructure
affected parties
implementation conditions

22.5 Development Dimension

Partnership design should address participation and capacity constraints consistent with the WTO development principle for international standards.[^wto-six]

22.6 Resource Equity

Avoid extracting data or expertise without durable local benefit.

22.7 Regional Hub

A hub agreement should define:

Legal entity
authority
territory
brand
funding
governance
standards status
records
exit

22.8 Translation

Translated work should follow VERSION_HISTORY.md and WEBSITE_SOURCE_OF_TRUTH.md.

22.9 Cross-Border Data

Address:

Legal transfer
localization
security
access
government demand
retention
redress

22.10 Recognition

Do not imply formal mutual recognition without an actual arrangement.

23. Philanthropic and Funder Partnerships

23.1 Due Diligence

Review:

Source of funds
governance
donor restrictions
political interests
portfolio conflicts
reputation
concentration
duration
exit

23.2 Donor Direction

A donor may define a broad supported purpose.

It should not determine findings or standards outcomes.

23.3 Donor-Advised and Anonymous Funding

Anonymous funding requires enhanced review.

The responsible internal body should know enough to assess conflicts and legality.

23.4 Naming Rights

Naming rights should not create authority or permanent influence.

23.5 Restricted Agenda

Avoid funding structures that make neglected topics impossible to pursue.

23.6 Funder Collaboration

A funder may support convening and learning.

It should not participate in technical decisions merely because it funded the work.

23.7 Public Disclosure

Publish material support and restrictions.

23.8 Exit

Plan for funding end without suppressing corrections or unfinished public obligations.

24. Open-Source and Technical-Community Partnerships

24.1 Value

Open communities may provide:

Code
methods
tasks
review
replication
incident discovery
global participation

24.2 Legal Identity

A community may lack a legal entity.

The agreement should identify accountable maintainers or a fiscal host where needed.

24.3 Contribution Governance

Use:

License
contributor agreement where necessary
code review
security policy
maintainers
version control
provenance
conduct

24.4 Open and Protected Work

Open methods may coexist with protected tasks and credentials.

24.5 Maintainer Capture

Monitor concentration of merge, release, and security authority.

24.6 Forking

Licenses and governance should define whether and how work may be forked.

24.7 Community Credit

Provide accurate contribution records.

24.8 Sustainability

Plan for maintenance, funding, succession, and archive.

24.9 No Community Endorsement Claim

A repository contribution does not establish endorsement by all contributors.

25. Vendors, Contractors, and Infrastructure Providers

25.1 Vendor Versus Partner

Use vendor terminology when the relationship is primarily procurement.

25.2 Material Vendor Review

Enhanced review applies when the vendor controls:

Domain
cloud
identity
data
security
communications
publication
source repository
critical compute
model access

25.3 Contract Requirements

Service
performance
security
privacy
incident notice
subcontracting
data return
deletion
audit
continuity
exit
ownership
portability

25.4 Vendor Branding

A vendor should not be presented as an institutional partner merely because it provides services.

25.5 Lock-In

Maintain:

Export
migration
backup
alternate providers
documentation
credentials
institutional accounts

25.6 AI Service Providers

Do not submit protected information to unauthorized external AI services.

25.7 Critical Supplier Incident

A supplier failure should trigger continuity and status review.

26. Joint Research and Evidence Production

26.1 Research Question

The partnership agreement should identify who may:

Propose the question
refine scope
approve the protocol
select methods
access data
interpret results
approve publication
correct errors

26.2 Research Independence

A partner may contribute expertise and evidence.

It should not control the result merely because it provided:

Funding
data
systems
personnel
infrastructure
access
publication support

26.3 Protocol

Material joint research should use a protocol proportionate to consequence.

26.4 Registration

Use preregistration or internal registration where appropriate.

26.5 Source Disclosure

Identify:

Partner-provided sources
independently obtained sources
protected evidence
contrary evidence
source restrictions

26.6 Methods

State whether methods are:

Standards Body methods
partner methods
jointly developed
independently reviewed
experimental
validated

26.7 Data Analysis

Preserve independent access to the analysis necessary to verify conclusions.

26.8 Review Rights

Partner review should distinguish:

Factual review
security review
confidentiality review
methodological review
editorial comment
approval right

26.9 Disagreement

The agreement should permit:

Separate interpretation
dissenting note
separate publication
correction request
withdrawal of name without erasing evidence

26.10 Research Misconduct

Define reporting, investigation, correction, and publication consequences.

26.11 Joint Conclusions

A joint conclusion should identify which parties approved it.

26.12 Independent Conclusion

Standards Body should be able to state its own supported conclusion when the partner disagrees.

27. Standards and Technical Work Products

27.1 Work-Product Classification

Joint technical work may produce:

Research report
technical specification
implementation guide
standards proposal
reference architecture
crosswalk
terminology
test method
open-source tool
public comment

27.2 Process Control

The agreement should identify:

Controlling process
consensus rules
voting
public review
appeals
maintenance
publication
copyright
status

27.3 No Private Standard by Partnership Label

A bilateral agreement should not be represented as broad consensus.

27.4 Joint Working Groups

Define:

Terms of reference
membership
chair
secretariat
balance
conflicts
records
decisions
public output
dissolution

27.5 Normative Authority

A partner should not receive authority to alter a Standard Body requirement outside the approved standards process.

27.6 Implementation Evidence

Partners may provide pilots and feedback.

Their commercial preference should not substitute for general evidence.

27.7 Maintenance

Joint outputs require:

Owner
versioning
source register
correction
review date
retirement
archive

27.8 Adoption

Each party should state whether it:

Contributed
approved
adopted
referenced
implemented
recognized
did not endorse

28. Evaluation and Model-Access Partnerships

28.1 Evaluated Object

The agreement should identify:

Developer
model
system
version
configuration
tools
access mode
safeguards
deployment context
date

28.2 Access Equality

Where comparative claims are made, access conditions should be sufficiently comparable.

28.3 Access Record

Preserve:

Credentials
rate limits
time window
privileged information
system changes
interruptions
restrictions
provider intervention

28.4 Task Independence

Protected task design and custody should remain governed independently.

28.5 Safety Controls

Define:

Stop conditions
escalation
information-hazard review
incident response
human oversight
disclosure

28.6 Publication Embargo

An embargo may protect:

Vulnerability remediation
task security
participant safety
lawful market-sensitive information

It should have:

Defined purpose
maximum duration
release condition
independent review
no indefinite suppression

28.7 Adverse Findings

The agreement should define handling without requiring favorable results.

28.8 Re-Evaluation

Access should permit correction or re-evaluation where a material error is identified.

28.9 Provider Response

Publish or preserve the provider's response separately from the independent result.

28.10 Result Use

The partner may not quote results outside scope or omit limitations.

29. Data Governance

29.1 Data Inventory

Identify:

Data
owner
source
purpose
rights
personal information
sensitivity
location
retention
deletion
sharing

29.2 Purpose Limitation

Use data only for approved purposes.

29.3 Data Minimization

Collect and share only what is necessary.

29.4 Provenance

Preserve:

Origin
collection
transformations
labels
versions
corrections
access

29.5 Data Quality

Define:

Validation
missingness
bias
representativeness
update
correction

29.6 Personal Data

Address:

Lawful basis
consent
notice
rights
security
retention
transfer
de-identification
re-identification risk

29.7 Sensitive and Protected Data

Use enhanced:

Access control
secure environment
logging
output review
incident handling
deletion verification

29.8 Data Controller and Processor Roles

Identify legal roles where applicable.

29.9 Partner Data Rights

A partner should not receive rights beyond the agreement.

29.10 Data Return and Deletion

Define after:

Project completion
termination
withdrawal
legal request
incident

29.11 Derived Data

Define ownership and use of:

Annotations
features
scores
analyses
embeddings
synthetic data
aggregate results

29.12 Data Audit

Material data partnerships should permit verification of compliance.

30. Intellectual Property and Licensing

30.1 Intellectual-Property Inventory

Identify:

Pre-existing work
joint work
code
data
methods
trademarks
patents
confidential know-how
publications
translations
task assets

30.2 Background Intellectual Property

Each party retains its background intellectual property unless the agreement states otherwise.

30.3 Foreground Intellectual Property

Define ownership of work created through the partnership.

30.4 Public-Interest Licensing

Prefer licenses that support:

Inspection
implementation
correction
research
interoperability
long-term access

subject to security and rights constraints.

30.5 Open Standards

Normative requirements should not depend unnecessarily on inaccessible proprietary rights.

30.6 Patent Disclosure

Standards-related partnerships should require timely disclosure of relevant patent interests according to the controlling standards process.

30.7 Code Licensing

Define:

License
dependencies
contribution
patents
security
maintenance
fork
archive

30.8 Data Licensing

Data rights may differ from code and documentation rights.

30.9 Trademark

Use of names, logos, marks, and certification-like symbols should be separately licensed and controlled.

30.10 Post-Termination Rights

Define continued use of:

Published outputs
licenses
citations
archives
confidential material
marks

30.11 Moral Rights and Attribution

Respect applicable authorship and attribution rights.

30.12 Intellectual-Property Dispute

A rights dispute should not justify false public claims or destruction of institutional history.

31. Publication Rights and Editorial Independence

31.1 Publication Baseline

Standards Body should preserve the right to publish accurate, evidence-based work within lawful security, privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual-property limits.

31.2 Review Period

Partner review should have a defined period.

31.3 Permitted Review Purposes

Correct factual error
identify confidential information
identify security risk
identify legal restriction
provide response
identify partner attribution issue

31.4 Impermissible Control

A partner should not:

Rewrite supported conclusions
remove unfavorable findings
require promotional language
delay indefinitely
select only favorable results
prohibit correction
require false equivalence
conceal funding or conflict

31.5 Publication Delay

A limited delay may be justified for:

Security remediation
patent filing
participant safety
legal compliance
coordinated incident disclosure

31.6 Publication Veto

A material partner veto is presumptively unacceptable for public-interest research.

Any exception requires:

Legal basis
narrow scope
maximum duration
independent review
public disclosure where possible

31.7 Partner Response

A partner may publish a response.

31.8 Joint Publication

Identify:

Authors
contributors
institutional approvals
conclusions
dissent
source status
corrections

31.9 Withdrawal of Name

A partner may withdraw its name from a joint publication before release, subject to attribution and record rules.

It should not erase completed work or evidence.

31.10 Correction Rights

Standards Body retains authority to correct its publication.

31.11 Publication After Exit

Termination should not automatically prevent publication of completed lawful work.

32. Confidentiality

32.1 Confidentiality Purpose

Protect legitimate interests without concealing invalidity, misconduct, or public-risk information improperly.

32.2 Confidential Information

May include:

Trade secrets
protected evaluation tasks
system information
personal data
security findings
unreleased research
legal advice
contract terms
incident evidence

32.3 Classification

Apply the information classes in TRANSPARENCY_FRAMEWORK.md.

32.4 Need to Know

Access should be based on role and purpose.

32.5 Confidentiality Duration

Define duration and review.

32.6 Exceptions

Permit disclosure where lawfully required for:

Legal obligation
court order
regulatory reporting
serious danger
protected whistleblowing
correction
independent review

subject to applicable process.

32.7 Residual Knowledge

Avoid broad clauses that permit unrestricted use of protected knowledge through memory.

32.8 Confidentiality and Publication

Redact or aggregate where possible rather than suppressing entire findings.

32.9 Return and Destruction

Define post-exit handling.

32.10 Breach

A breach should trigger:

Containment
notice
investigation
correction
status review
possible termination

33. Security

33.1 Security Review

Required when the partnership involves:

Frontier systems
model weights
privileged access
held-out tasks
vulnerabilities
dangerous capabilities
critical infrastructure
personal data
confidential government information
production credentials

33.2 Security Responsibilities

Allocate:

Risk assessment
access approval
identity
logging
encryption
storage
devices
networks
physical security
incident response
recovery
reporting

33.3 Shared Environment

Define:

Administrator
access
data
logs
changes
backups
deletion
monitoring
jurisdiction

33.4 Personnel Security

Address:

Authorization
screening where lawful
training
confidentiality
least privilege
departure

33.5 Supply Chain

Review subcontractors and technical dependencies.

33.6 Security Incident

Define:

Notification time
contact
evidence preservation
coordination
public disclosure
regulator notice
remediation
continuation

33.7 Security Review Rights

Standards Body should be able to verify material controls directly or through qualified independent evidence.

33.8 No Security Pretext

Security should not be invoked broadly to suppress criticism or conceal conflicts.

33.9 Dangerous Information

Publication should follow information-hazard review.

33.10 Security Exit

Revoke:

Credentials
keys
access
devices
shared accounts
permissions
certificates

promptly after exit.

34. Branding, Names, Logos, and Marks

34.1 Branding Principle

Brand use should describe the relationship, not manufacture authority.

34.2 Approval

Use of Standards Body's:

Name
logo
domain
publication design
seals
badges
marks

requires written approval.

34.3 Permitted Relationship Language

Examples:

Research collaborator on [project]
Funding supporter of [project]
Participant in [pilot]
Standards liaison for [defined process]
Model-access provider for [evaluation]
Regional convening collaborator

34.4 Prohibited Language

Without exact basis:

Official partner
certified by Standards Body
accredited by Standards Body
approved by Standards Body
global standards authority partner
government-recognized through Standards Body
Standards Body safe AI partner
endorsed technology

34.5 Partner Logo

A logo may be displayed only with:

Relationship label
scope
duration
no-endorsement context
current status

34.6 Logo Placement

Design should not imply:

Equal authority
joint ownership
certification
public approval
government recognition

34.7 Marks and Certification-Like Badges

Standards Body should not issue partnership badges that resemble certification or accreditation marks.

34.8 Partner Materials

The partner should submit material uses for review.

34.9 Digital Monitoring

Monitor websites, social media, press releases, reports, and sales materials.

34.10 Correction and Takedown

The agreement should require prompt correction.

34.11 Post-Exit Use

Use of name and logo should end except for accurate historical references.

35. Public Communications

35.1 Announcement

A partnership announcement should state:

Parties
relationship type
purpose
duration
funding
work
authority limits
no-endorsement note
contact
public summary

35.2 Joint Statement

A joint statement should identify whether each statement is:

Jointly agreed
attributed to one party
background
future intention
current fact

35.3 Spokespersons

Only authorized persons may speak for the relationship.

35.4 Media Inquiries

Coordinate facts without requiring identical opinions.

35.5 Press Release Approval

Approval should cover factual relationship description.

It should not create partner control over unrelated Standards Body speech.

35.6 Social Media

Social posts should preserve authority limits.

35.7 Crisis Communications

Define lead, coordination, legal review, security, corrections, and public notice.

35.8 Public Disagreement

Partners may disagree publicly.

The relationship should not require artificial consensus.

35.9 Correction

False or outdated announcements should be corrected across channels.

35.10 Historical Record

Preserve original and corrected public statements.

36. Joint Governance and Decision Rights

36.1 Governance Structure

A material project may use:

Steering committee
technical committee
research group
security group
public-interest advisory group
secretariat
independent review panel

36.2 Terms of Reference

Define:

Purpose
membership
chair
quorum
decisions
conflicts
records
escalation
duration
dissolution

36.3 Decision Classes

Standards Body Reserved

Institutional identity
final Standards Body position
use of name
publication of Standards Body work
correction of Standards Body work
internal personnel
internal governance

Partner Reserved

Partner's internal policy
partner systems
partner public position
partner personnel
partner legal compliance

Joint

Shared work plan
joint budget
joint event
jointly authored output
shared infrastructure
agreed public announcement

36.4 Deadlock

Define:

Escalation
mediation
independent review
separate publication
scope reduction
termination

36.5 No Joint Veto Over Truth

Joint governance should not prevent either party from correcting its own false statement or complying with law.

36.6 Records

Preserve decisions, dissent, conflicts, and changes.

36.7 Observers

Observer rights should be defined.

36.8 Community Participation

Affected-party participation should not be subordinated automatically to organizational voting power.

37. Partnership Agreement Architecture

37.1 Parties

Identify exact legal entities and authorized signatories.

37.2 Purpose

Define the public-interest purpose and scope.

37.3 Term

Define:

Start
end
renewal
review
termination
survival

37.4 Contributions

Define each party's:

Money
staff
expertise
access
data
infrastructure
intellectual property
communications

37.5 Governance

Define decisions and escalation.

37.6 Independence

Preserve technical, editorial, evidence, standards, and governance independence.

37.7 Funding

Define payment, restrictions, reporting, and refund.

37.8 Data and Privacy

Define lawful use and responsibilities.

37.9 Intellectual Property

Define background, foreground, licensing, and archive.

37.10 Publication

Define review, delay, correction, dissent, and response.

37.11 Confidentiality and Security

Define classification, access, incidents, return, and destruction.

37.12 Branding

Define names, logos, marks, and public claims.

37.13 Conduct

Require compliance with:

Law
anti-corruption
competition
sanctions
human rights
nonretaliation
code of conduct

37.14 Monitoring

Define reporting, audit, milestones, and review.

37.15 Complaints and Incidents

Define routes and cooperation.

37.16 Termination

Define grounds, notice, immediate action, and post-exit duties.

37.17 Dispute Resolution

Define:

Negotiation
mediation
arbitration
court
governing law
public-law limits

37.18 Entire Relationship

Avoid side agreements that alter public-interest controls without approval.

38. Financial Terms and Procurement

38.1 Fair Value

Financial terms should be documented and reasonable.

38.2 Procurement Integrity

Use fair procurement where goods or services are purchased.

38.3 Related Parties

Disclose and review related-party transactions.

38.4 Hidden Subsidy

Record in-kind contributions and below-market access.

38.5 Payment Milestones

Tie payment to completed work, not favorable findings.

38.6 Expenses

Define eligible expenses and documentation.

38.7 Audit

Material partnerships should permit financial verification.

38.8 Tax

Address applicable tax status and reporting.

38.9 Foreign Funding

Review legal, political, sanctions, security, and public-claim implications.

38.10 Contingent Payment

Prohibit payment contingent on standards adoption, accreditation, certification, favorable evaluation, or regulatory outcome.

39. Competition and Antitrust

39.1 Competition Principle

Partnerships should not become mechanisms for unlawful coordination or exclusion.

39.2 Risk Areas

Pricing
market allocation
boycotts
exclusive dealing
sensitive commercial information
standards exclusion
certification market control
evaluator allocation
procurement manipulation
access discrimination

39.3 Standards Meetings

Use agendas, minutes, competition guidance, and counsel where appropriate.

39.4 Commercially Sensitive Information

Do not share unnecessary:

Prices
customers
future strategy
capacity
bids
wages
market allocation

39.5 Technical Necessity

A technical requirement should be justified by evidence and public-interest need.

39.6 Essential Access

Review whether exclusive access to:

Tests
data
infrastructure
certification
accreditation
registries

creates unfair barriers.

39.7 Open Participation

Standards processes should provide fair participation consistent with their scope and governance.

39.8 Competition Review

Required for high-impact industry consortia, standards, shared data, and evaluator schemes.

40. Anti-Corruption and Improper Influence

40.1 Prohibition

Partners should not offer, request, authorize, or accept bribery or improper benefit.

40.2 Covered Benefits

Cash
gifts
travel
hospitality
jobs
contracts
access
data
awards
political support
research funding
publication placement
admissions
favors

40.3 Public Officials

Enhanced controls apply to public officials and state-owned entities.

40.4 Intermediaries

Review agents, consultants, lobbyists, and local representatives.

40.5 Gifts and Hospitality

Use low thresholds, disclosure, and refusal where influence may be perceived.

40.6 Facilitation Payments

Prohibit except where an immediate threat to health or safety requires protective action, followed by reporting and review.

40.7 Books and Records

Maintain accurate records.

40.8 Reporting

Provide protected reporting.

40.9 Investigation

Cooperate with lawful investigation while protecting due process.

40.10 Termination

Serious corruption may require immediate suspension or termination.

The United Nations Convention against Corruption provides an international anti-corruption reference framework.[^uncac]

41. Sanctions, Export Controls, and Restricted Parties

41.1 Screening

Where legally relevant, screen:

Parties
owners
affiliates
individuals
countries
end users
end uses

41.2 Controlled Technology

Frontier AI work may involve:

Advanced compute
model weights
cybersecurity tools
technical data
dual-use research
encryption
critical infrastructure

41.3 Legal Advice

Obtain qualified advice for material cross-border restrictions.

41.4 No Evasion

Do not structure a partnership to evade lawful controls.

41.5 Humanitarian and Research Exceptions

Assess applicable exceptions carefully.

41.6 Status Change

A sanctions or export-control change may require immediate suspension.

41.7 Public Explanation

Disclose the safest accurate reason where possible.

42. Political Activity and Lobbying

42.1 Political Independence

A partnership should not convert Standards Body into a vehicle for partisan campaigning.

42.2 Policy Engagement

Standards Body may:

Provide evidence
comment on policy
explain standards
advise institutions
participate in consultations

within its identity and legal limits.

42.3 Lobbying Disclosure

Identify material lobbying activity conducted jointly or on behalf of the partnership.

42.4 No Implied Government Position

A public official's participation does not imply government endorsement.

42.5 Election Activity

Avoid use of partnership resources for prohibited or inappropriate electoral activity.

42.6 Policy Disagreement

Partners should remain free to hold different policy positions.

43. Environmental and Resource Considerations

43.1 Environmental Review

Assess material partnership effects involving:

Compute
energy
water
hardware
travel
data centers
electronic waste
infrastructure

43.2 Resource Contributions

Disclose significant compute or infrastructure contributions.

43.3 Environmental Claims

Do not make unsupported sustainability claims.

43.4 Tradeoffs

Public-interest review should consider environmental cost alongside technical benefit.

43.5 Local Impact

Engage communities affected by infrastructure where material.

44. Accessibility, Language, and Participation

44.1 Accessibility

Partnership activities should provide reasonable accessibility for:

Meetings
documents
websites
public comments
events
tools
reports

44.2 Language

Provide translation or interpretation proportionate to participation needs.

44.3 Participation Cost

Budget for meaningful participation.

44.4 Time Zones and Geography

Avoid processes that systematically exclude regions.

44.5 Digital Access

Provide lower-bandwidth or asynchronous options where feasible.

44.6 Technical Barriers

Plain-language and technical versions may be needed.

44.7 Participation Record

Track who could and could not participate.

44.8 Accessibility Failure

A partnership claiming inclusion should not exclude the people most affected through its operating design.

45. Partnership Transparency

45.1 Public Partnership Register

The public register should include material partnerships.

45.2 Required Public Fields

Partner legal name
relationship type
purpose
scope
duration
funding or in-kind support
Standards Body owner
governance
data relationship
intellectual-property model
publication rights
branding rights
authority limits
current status
review date
termination date where applicable

45.3 Protected Information

The public register may omit or generalize:

Security-sensitive details
protected evaluation tasks
personal information
lawful trade secrets
active vulnerability information
confidential government information

The reason for protection should be stated at the safest useful level.

45.4 No-Endorsement Statement

Every material entry should state:

This relationship concerns the defined purpose and does not imply approval, certification, accreditation, governmental recognition, or endorsement of all activities or positions of either party.

45.5 Funding Disclosure

Disclose material funding and in-kind contributions.

45.6 Model-Provider Disclosure

Disclose:

Access provided
restrictions
funding
publication rights
factual review
independence controls

45.7 Government Disclosure

State the precise legal or contractual basis.

45.8 Partnership Status

Use:

Proposed
under review
active
conditional
suspended
ending
terminated
completed
archived

45.9 Historical Register

Preserve ended relationships and status history.

45.10 Correction

A public register error should be corrected visibly.

46. Monitoring and Periodic Review

46.1 Monitoring Purpose

Determine whether the partnership remains:

Mission aligned
lawful
independent
effective
secure
financially sustainable
accurately described
beneficial to affected parties
capable of ending safely

46.2 Monitoring Inputs

Deliverables
funding
conflicts
incidents
complaints
public claims
security
data handling
publication
affected-party feedback
legal status
partner conduct
dependency
market concentration

46.3 Review Frequency

P1

At completion or after material change.

P2

At least annually or at major milestones.

P3

At least annually, with quarterly risk monitoring.

P4

Continuous governance oversight and formal periodic review.

46.4 Triggered Review

Trigger after:

Ownership change
leadership change
legal investigation
enforcement
severe public allegation
security incident
human-rights concern
conflict disclosure
funding change
public claim drift
access withdrawal
standards-status change
government transition
merger
insolvency

46.5 Partner Reporting

Material partners should report relevant changes promptly.

46.6 Standards Body Monitoring

Standards Body should not rely only on self-reporting.

46.7 Performance Review

Assess whether intended public outcomes were achieved.

46.8 Independence Review

Assess whether dependence increased.

46.9 Renewal Decision

Renew
renew with conditions
narrow
monitor
suspend
complete
terminate

46.10 Review Record

Preserve evidence, decision, dissent, conditions, and next review.

47. Complaints and Concerns

47.1 Who May Complain

Partner
contributor
employee
contractor
affected person
community
evaluator
developer
funder
government
public-interest organization
member of the public

47.2 Complaint Subjects

Misleading partnership claim
conflict
interference
discrimination
retaliation
data misuse
security
corruption
publication suppression
human-rights impact
procurement
mark misuse
failure to deliver
breach of agreement

47.3 Intake

Record:

Complainant
concern
evidence
urgency
confidentiality
retaliation risk
requested outcome

47.4 Independent Handling

A partnership owner should not control a complaint alleging the owner's misconduct.

47.5 Interim Action

Possible actions:

Preserve evidence
pause work
restrict access
suspend branding
protect complainant
issue warning
notify authority

47.6 Investigation

Use competent, conflict-screened investigators.

47.7 Outcome

No finding
clarification
correction
remediation
enhanced monitoring
disciplinary action
suspension
termination
external referral

47.8 Complainant Communication

Provide a safe outcome summary.

47.9 Public Reporting

Publish aggregate complaint data and material systemic findings.

47.10 Nonretaliation

Retaliation is itself a serious partnership breach.

48. Whistleblowing and Protected Disclosure

48.1 Protected Topics

Fraud
corruption
fabricated evidence
hidden conflict
security failure
dangerous conduct
retaliation
public deception
unlawful activity
serious rights harm
suppression of findings

48.2 Reporting Channels

Internal protected channel
independent governance channel
security channel
legal channel
external authority where lawful

48.3 Confidentiality

Protect identity to the extent lawful and possible.

48.4 Partner Agreement

The agreement should not prohibit lawful protected disclosures.

48.5 No Nondisparagement Shield

Nondisparagement clauses should not prevent truthful reporting of serious concerns.

48.6 Investigation

Protect due process while preventing retaliation.

48.7 Remedy

Provide correction, restoration, compensation, referral, or other action within authority.

49. Partnership Incidents

49.1 Incident Types

Security breach
data breach
false public claim
unauthorized logo use
result suppression
corruption
conflict concealment
human-rights harm
sanctions issue
unlawful conduct
task compromise
intellectual-property dispute
publication dispute
access retaliation
partner insolvency
regulatory action

49.2 Incident Severity

I0: Minor

No material effect on integrity or public reliance.

I1: Significant

Requires correction or operating change.

I2: Serious

May affect independence, security, rights, or published work.

I3: Critical

Requires immediate suspension, external reporting, or termination consideration.

49.3 Incident Response

Protect people.
contain risk.
preserve evidence.
notify responsible functions.
classify.
investigate.
correct public records.
assess continuation.
notify affected parties.
preserve lessons.

49.4 Joint Investigation

A partner implicated in the incident should not control the complete investigation.

49.5 External Authority

Notify regulators, law enforcement, data authorities, funders, or accreditation bodies where law or role requires.

49.6 Public Notice

Publish when the incident materially affects:

Public reliance
safety
rights
security
partnership status
published findings
authority claims

49.7 Status

The partnership register should reflect suspension or termination promptly.

49.8 Post-Incident Review

Assess:

Cause
governance
agreement
monitoring
dependence
culture
systemic correction

50. Correction of Partnership Claims and Outputs

50.1 Correction Scope

Corrections may affect:

Partnership register
press release
report
website
social media
logo placement
partner sales material
joint publication
funding disclosure
authority description

50.2 Correction Authority

Each party should correct its own false statements.

Joint statements require coordinated correction without unreasonable delay.

50.3 Partner Refusal

If a partner refuses to correct a materially false claim, Standards Body should:

Publish its own correction
revoke branding rights
suspend the relationship
consider termination
preserve evidence

50.4 Propagation

Update:

Website
downloadable files
registry
metadata
social previews
newsletters
partner pages
archives
translations

50.5 Historical Preservation

Preserve the original and correction.

51. Renewal

51.1 Renewal Is a New Decision

A relationship should not renew automatically merely because no incident was reported.

51.2 Renewal Review

Assess:

Purpose
outcomes
mission
dependence
conflicts
funding
rights
security
public claims
partner conduct
legal status
exit alternatives

51.3 Updated Agreement

Update terms after material change.

51.4 Public Notice

Update duration and status.

51.5 Declined Renewal

A completed relationship may end without wrongdoing.

51.6 Transition

Protect continuity and public clarity.

52. Suspension

52.1 Grounds

Investigation
security concern
public claim drift
unmanageable conflict
funding issue
legal change
rights concern
failure to deliver
access retaliation
serious complaint
sanctions concern

52.2 Scope

Suspension may apply to:

Branding
data access
publication
joint governance
funding
one project
entire relationship

52.3 Immediate Suspension

Use when continuation creates material risk.

52.4 Public Status

State suspension at the safest useful level.

52.5 Restoration

Requires evidence, correction, approval, and updated public status.

53. Termination and Exit

53.1 Termination Grounds

Mission conflict
interference
corruption
serious misconduct
material rights harm
security failure
unlawful activity
repeated false public claims
concealment
retaliation
insolvency
authority change
strategic completion
mutual agreement

53.2 Notice

Define ordinary notice and immediate termination.

53.3 Exit Plan

Address:

Active work
personnel
funding
data
systems
credentials
intellectual property
publication
confidential information
records
branding
complaints
corrections
affected parties

53.4 Joint Work

Determine whether work will:

Continue
transfer
pause
publish
archive
withdraw
split into separate outputs

53.5 Public Statement

Use accurate, nonretaliatory language.

53.6 Post-Exit Brand Use

Only accurate historical reference remains permitted.

53.7 Data and Access

Return, delete, retain, or transfer according to agreement and law.

53.8 Corrections After Exit

Each party retains responsibility to correct its public record.

53.9 Survival

Possible surviving terms:

Confidentiality
security
intellectual property
publication
records
audit
correction
dispute resolution
nonretaliation

53.10 No Hostage Relationship

A partner should not retain essential records or credentials to obstruct exit.

54. Continuity, Transfer, and Partner Failure

54.1 Failure Scenarios

Insolvency
merger
acquisition
closure
sanctions
cyber compromise
government dissolution
loss of recognition
loss of key personnel
infrastructure failure

54.2 Change of Control

A material change in ownership should trigger review.

54.3 No Automatic Transfer

A partnership should not transfer automatically to a materially different entity without approval.

54.4 Record Custody

Define who preserves:

Agreements
research
evidence
publications
complaints
incidents
corrections
source code
data

54.5 Successor

A successor should meet due-diligence and agreement requirements.

54.6 Public Continuity

Update the register and public claims.

54.7 Critical Infrastructure

Maintain alternative access and migration plans.

55. Partnership Metrics

55.1 Purpose Metrics

Public-interest outcomes
research outputs
standards coherence
evaluation access
implementation
capacity
affected-party benefit

55.2 Independence Metrics

Funder concentration
access concentration
exclusive relationships
partner governance rights
publication disputes
recusals
dependence

55.3 Integrity Metrics

Claim corrections
logo misuse
complaints
incidents
partner disclosures
overdue reviews
contract exceptions

55.4 Participation Metrics

Regions
languages
affected-party participation
accessibility
small-organization participation
compensated public-interest participation

55.5 Security and Data Metrics

Access reviews
incidents
data-return completion
vendor findings
protected-information breaches

55.6 Financial Metrics

Partner funding
concentration
in-kind value
restricted funding
unpaid commitments
termination cost

55.7 Exit Metrics

Time to suspend
time to correct
exit readiness
record recovery
branding removal
continuity

55.8 Anti-Metric Rule

Do not treat:

Partner count
partner prestige
logo count
geographic count
funding volume
media reach

as proof of institutional legitimacy.

56. Partnership Audit

56.1 Audit Scope

Register
approvals
due diligence
conflicts
funding
agreements
data
intellectual property
publication
branding
security
human rights
monitoring
complaints
incidents
renewals
exits

56.2 Audit Sample

Include:

Developer
government
standards organization
evaluator
accreditation body
academic institution
civil-society organization
funder
infrastructure vendor
international partner

56.3 Audit Questions

Is the relationship classified accurately?
Was approval valid?
Is the public purpose clear?
Are risks current?
Are funding and conflicts visible?
Are decision rights bounded?
Are publication rights adequate?
Is data handled lawfully?
Is branding accurate?
Can Standards Body exit?
Were affected parties engaged?
Are complaints safe?
Did corrections propagate?
Does public status match reality?

56.4 Critical Findings

Concealed partner control
false government or international recognition
publication veto over supported findings
corruption
serious retaliation
unauthorized protected-data use
false certification or accreditation claim
undisclosed material funding
no exit from severe dependency
partner control of complaint investigation
material agreement outside approval authority

56.5 Corrective Action

Assign:

Owner
deadline
interim control
public correction
relationship status
verification
systemic change

56.6 Independent Audit

P4 relationships and high-risk P3 relationships should receive independent review.

57. Partnership Maturity Model

Level 0: Informal Association

Characteristics:

Meetings
broad labels
no register
no due diligence
unclear claims

Level 1: Documented Collaboration

Characteristics:

Purpose
owner
written terms
basic conflict review
defined output
exit

Level 2: Governed Partnership System

Characteristics:

Tiers
approval
due diligence
register
standard agreements
funding and branding controls
annual review

Level 3: Public-Interest Partnership Network

Characteristics:

Affected-party review
independent monitoring
cross-sector balance
publication independence
incident and complaint systems
transparent status

Level 4: Internationally Interoperable Network

Characteristics:

Regional hubs
multilingual agreements
cross-border data controls
standards liaisons
recognition mappings
local capacity

Level 5: Adaptive Institutional Ecosystem

Characteristics:

Real-time risk monitoring
diversified dependencies
auditable public records
resilient exit
distributed competence
independently reviewed authority
correction across partner systems

57.1 Maturity Rule

Controls:

Agreement
records
independent governance
public correction
legal support

59. Serious Objections and Responses

Objection 1: Strict partnership controls will make collaboration too slow

Proportional tiers keep low-risk collaboration lightweight.

High-risk relationships should be slower because their effects are larger.

Objection 2: No serious model provider will accept independent publication rights

Some providers may require legitimate security review.

A relationship that permits suppression of supported adverse conclusions should not be described as independent.

Objection 3: Funding always influences priorities

Funding affects capacity and topic selection.

The framework makes that influence visible, diversifies it, and prevents direct control of conclusions and governance.

Objection 4: Government relationships inherently create authority

They create only the authority actually delegated or recognized by law and agreement.

Research, advice, procurement, and regulatory designation remain distinct.

Objection 5: Partner due diligence will become ideological screening

Due diligence should focus on relevant evidence, conduct, risks, authority, conflicts, and the proposed relationship.

It should not require total political agreement.

Objection 6: Human-rights review is outside a technical standards project

Frontier AI standards and evaluations may affect rights, public services, safety, and remedy.

Ignoring those effects would be an institutional design failure.

Objection 7: Civil-society partners are not technically qualified

Technical competence and affected-party knowledge are different contributions.

Neither should replace the other.

Objection 8: Public disclosure will deter partners

Some information may remain protected.

Purpose, funding, roles, authority limits, and current status should ordinarily remain visible.

Objection 9: Joint work requires shared editorial control

Joint statements may require joint approval.

Standards Body should preserve separate publication and correction rights for its own supported conclusions.

Objection 10: Nonexclusivity will prevent valuable privileged access

A limited exclusive arrangement may be justified.

It requires duration, public-interest rationale, alternatives, and enhanced review.

Objection 11: Brand controls are overly defensive

Names and logos create public meaning.

False certification, accreditation, government recognition, or endorsement claims can cause real harm.

Objection 12: Small organizations cannot meet these requirements

Requirements should scale by tier and risk.

Participation support can reduce cost without eliminating core integrity controls.

Objection 13: International work requires broad claims to attract participation

Accurate claims are more durable than premature global branding.

Objection 14: Exit rights make partners less committed

A credible exit protects both parties and prevents dependency from replacing voluntary collaboration.

Objection 15: Standards Body should accept prominent partners early to build legitimacy

Premature prestige relationships can create borrowed legitimacy, capture, and authority inflation.

Credibility should arise from the quality of the work and governance of the relationship.

60. Implementation Pathway

Phase 1: Minimum Partnership Control

Adopt terminology
classify existing relationships
create intake
create basic due diligence
define approval authority
create no-endorsement language
create partnership register

Phase 2: Agreement Infrastructure

Create standard agreement modules
define data and intellectual property
define publication rights
define branding
define complaints
define exit
create record system

Phase 3: Material Partnership Governance

Adopt tier system
create board review
create conflict register
create funding concentration review
create human-rights review
create security review
create annual monitoring

Phase 5: Public Infrastructure

Publish register
publish summaries
add structured metadata
create corrections
create public complaint route
archive ended partnerships

Phase 6: Resilience and Exit

Map dependencies
create alternatives
test data return
test credential revocation
test publication after exit
conduct termination exercise

Phase 7: Audit and International Interoperability

Conduct independent audit
test regional agreements
improve translations
map standards liaisons
publish metrics
revise framework

61. First Partnership Governance Pilot

61.1 Pilot Title

Material Partnership Review Pilot

61.2 Scope

Apply the framework to three hypothetical or real candidate relationships:

Frontier AI model-access provider
standards or accreditation institution
civil-society or affected-community organization

61.3 Pilot Steps

Intake
classification
tier
due diligence
human-rights review
conflict review
authority review
data and intellectual-property terms
publication terms
branding terms
agreement
public summary
monitoring plan
exit drill

61.4 Comparative Questions

Which risks differ by partner type?
Which controls are universal?
Which reviews require external expertise?
How long does approval take?
Can public summaries remain useful?
Are exit rights operational?
Does the relationship create false authority?
Can Standards Body publish adverse findings?
Are affected parties represented?

61.5 Success Criteria

Relationship type is precise
public purpose is measurable
due diligence changes the agreement where needed
conflicts are visible
publication independence is preserved
data and security are governed
branding cannot imply endorsement
public summary is accurate
exit is feasible
monitoring is assigned

61.6 Pilot Nonclaim

Participation in the pilot does not create approved partner status unless formal approval is granted.

62. Partnership Governance Scorecard

Dimension	Core question
Identity	Are the exact legal parties known?
Classification	Is the relationship type precise?
Tier	Is governance proportionate to materiality?
Purpose	Does the relationship advance a defined public interest?
Necessity	Is partnership the appropriate mechanism?
Authority	Did the correct body approve it?
Nonauthority	Are absent powers and recognition clear?
Mission	Does the relationship fit present identity?
Human rights	Are severe impacts and affected parties addressed?
Independence	Can Standards Body reach and publish its own conclusions?
Capture	Are funding, access, governance, and prestige risks controlled?
Conflicts	Are relevant interests disclosed and managed?
Funding	Are money and in-kind resources transparent and noncontrolling?
Government	Is the legal or contractual relationship described exactly?
Standards	Are liaison, voting, adoption, and consensus rights accurate?
Evaluation	Are developer and evaluator roles separated appropriately?
Data	Are purpose, rights, privacy, provenance, and deletion governed?
Intellectual property	Can work remain usable and correctable?
Publication	Are factual review, embargo, dissent, and correction controlled?
Confidentiality	Are secrets protected without concealing misconduct?
Security	Are access, incidents, and dangerous information governed?
Branding	Can no logo or claim imply unsupported endorsement or authority?
Governance	Are joint and reserved decisions clear?
Competition	Are coordination and exclusion risks controlled?
Corruption	Are improper benefits and intermediaries governed?
Sanctions	Are cross-border restrictions addressed?
Accessibility	Can affected and regional participants engage meaningfully?
Transparency	Is the material relationship publicly registered?
Monitoring	Are outcomes, conflicts, claims, and risks reviewed?
Complaints	Can concerns be raised safely and independently?
Incidents	Can the relationship pause, investigate, and correct?
Renewal	Is continuation a new reasoned decision?
Exit	Can Standards Body leave without losing truth, records, or continuity?
History	Is the complete relationship preserved?
Audit	Can an independent reviewer reconstruct the decision and operation?

62.1 Critical Failures

The following normally prevent approval or require immediate suspension:

False or concealed legal identity
unlawful purpose
bribery or corruption
unmanageable capture
predetermined conclusions
publication veto over supported public-interest findings
false government, standards, certification, accreditation, or international-recognition claim
severe unresolved human-rights harm
unauthorized protected-data use
no security controls for protected frontier systems
result-dependent funding
retaliation
no credible exit from a severe dependency
partner control of complaints concerning itself
exclusive relationship creating unjustified institutional or market control
agreement approved outside valid authority

62.2 No Composite Score

A critical authority, independence, rights, security, corruption, or publication failure cannot be offset by funding, expertise, or prestige.

63. Partnership Intake Template

Intake ID:
Proposed partner:
Legal entity:
Authorized representative:
Proposer:
Date:
Proposed relationship type:
Proposed tier:

Public-Interest Purpose

Why Partnership Is Necessary

Expected Outcomes

Contributions by Each Party

Funding and In-Kind Resources

Data and System Access

Intellectual Property

Publication

Branding

Duration

Affected Parties

Preliminary Risks

Existing Relationships and Conflicts

Required Review

Intake Decision

Proceed
proceed with conditions
request information
escalate
defer
decline
prohibit

64. Partnership Due-Diligence Template

Review ID:
Partner:
Relationship:
Tier:
Reviewer:
Date:

Identity and Ownership

Governance

Mission and Conduct

Legal and Regulatory Status

Authority

Financial Condition

Funding and Restrictions

Human-Rights Impacts

Affected Parties and Engagement

Technical Competence

Research or Evaluation Integrity

Security

Privacy and Data

Intellectual Property

Conflicts and Capture

Competition and Antitrust

Anti-Corruption

Sanctions and Export Controls

Public Claims and Branding History

Incidents, Complaints, and Corrections

Dependency and Exit

Partner Response

Residual Risk

Recommendation

Approve
approve with conditions
enhanced monitoring
limited scope
defer
decline
prohibit

65. Partnership Approval Record Template

Decision ID:
Partner:
Relationship type:
Tier:
Decision authority:
Date:

Purpose

Due-Diligence Findings

Public-Interest Assessment

Conflicts and Recusals

Funding

Authority Implications

Data, Security, and Privacy

Publication and Intellectual Property

Branding and Public Claims

Decision

Approve
approve conditionally
narrow
defer
decline
prohibit

Conditions

Effective Date

Review Date

Term

Termination Authority

Dissent

Public Summary

66. Material Partnership Public Summary Template

Partner:
Legal entity:
Relationship type:
Status:
Start date:
Expected end or review date:

Purpose

Scope

Contributions

Funding and In-Kind Support

Governance

Data and System Access

Intellectual Property

Publication Rights

Branding Rights

Security and Confidentiality

Authority Limits

This relationship concerns the defined purpose and does not imply approval, certification, accreditation, governmental recognition, or endorsement of all activities or positions of either party.

Complaints and Corrections

Current Status and History

67. Conflict and Independence Record Template

Partnership:
Review date:
Owner:

Threat	Source	Severity	Existing control	Residual risk	Decision

Governance Independence

Financial Independence

Methodological Independence

Informational Independence

Operational Independence

Publication Independence

Political Independence

Access Dependence

Client or Funder Concentration

Recusals

Independent Review

Public Disclosure

Reassessment Trigger

68. Model-Access Agreement Schedule Template

Provider:
System:
Model and system version:
Access mode:
Project:
Access period:

Interfaces and Tools

Rate and Use Limits

Safeguards

Logs and Evidence

System Changes

Task Independence

Provider Personnel

Confidentiality

Security

Factual Review

Publication Review Period

Embargo

Adverse Findings

Corrections

Access Withdrawal

Unrelated Access Nonretaliation

Marketing and Public Claims

Post-Access Records

69. Joint Research Agreement Schedule Template

Project:
Parties:
Research owner:
Protocol ID:
Registration:

Research Question

Methods

Data

Systems

Human Participants

Roles

Authorship and Contributions

Funding

Analysis Independence

Partner Review

Publication

Dissent and Separate Publication

Intellectual Property

Security and Confidentiality

Corrections and Retractions

Exit

70. Standards Liaison Record Template

Relationship ID:
Organization:
Committee or program:
Liaison type:
Start date:
Review date:

Procedural Basis

Participation Rights

Attend
submit
nominate
comment
observe
vote
access documents

Representative

Conflicts

Information Exchange

Confidentiality

Public Reporting

Standards Status Limits

Renewal or Termination

71. Government Relationship Record Template

Government entity:
Jurisdiction:
Relationship type:
Legal or contractual basis:
Start date:
Status:

Purpose

Authority Granted

Authority Not Granted

Funding

Deliverables

Publication Rights

Public-Record Obligations

Confidentiality and Security

Human-Rights Review

Political-Activity Limits

Audit and Oversight

Public Description

Review and Exit

72. Data-Sharing Schedule Template

Data set or system:
Provider:
Recipient:
Purpose:
Term:

Data Description

Provenance

Ownership

Legal Roles

Lawful Basis

Permitted Uses

Prohibited Uses

Access

Security

Personal Data

Cross-Border Transfer

Derived Data

Audit

Incident Notice

Correction

Retention

Return or Deletion

Post-Termination

73. Intellectual-Property Schedule Template

Partnership:
Effective date:

Background Intellectual Property

Foreground Intellectual Property

Joint Work

Code

Data

Methods

Standards Contributions

Patents

Copyright

Trademarks

Licenses

Attribution

Publication

Maintenance

Security Restrictions

Post-Termination Rights

Archive Rights

74. Publication Review Log Template

Output:
Version:
Partner:
Review period:

Comment	Category	Evidence	Disposition	Decision owner
	Factual
	Confidentiality
	Security
	Legal
	Editorial

Embargo

Unresolved Disagreement

Partner Response

Independent Conclusion

Publication Decision

Correction Route

75. Branding Authorization Template

Partner:
Authorized asset:
Purpose:
Channels:
Start:
End:

Approved Relationship Language

Required Scope and Status

No-Endorsement Language

Prohibited Uses

Placement Rules

Review Rights

Monitoring

Correction Deadline

Suspension

Post-Exit Removal

76. Partnership Monitoring Record Template

Partnership:
Review period:
Reviewer:
Tier:

Purpose and Outcomes

Deliverables

Funding

Conflicts

Independence

Human Rights

Affected-Party Feedback

Data and Privacy

Security

Publication

Branding and Public Claims

Complaints

Incidents

Dependency

Legal and Organizational Changes

Renewal Recommendation

Continue
continue with conditions
narrow
suspend
complete
terminate

Next Review

77. Partnership Incident Record Template

Incident ID:
Partnership:
Detected:
Severity:
Owner:

Incident Type

Affected People, Systems, Data, or Publications

Immediate Risk

Containment

Evidence Preservation

Partner Notification

External Notification

Investigation

Root Cause

Public-Reliance Effect

Correction

Partnership Status

Remediation

Continuation Decision

Public Notice

Closure

78. Suspension and Termination Record Template

Partnership:
Action: Suspension or termination
Authority:
Effective date:

Grounds

Immediate Effect

Active Work

Funding

Data and Access

Intellectual Property

Publication

Branding

Confidentiality

People and Affected Parties

Records and Archive

Public Statement

Corrections

Disputes

Post-Exit Monitoring

79. Partnership Dependency Register Template

Dependency	Partner	Criticality	Alternatives	Switching time	Exit effect	Mitigation	Owner

Concentration Findings

Single Points of Failure

Required Diversification

Continuity Test

Review Date

80. Partnership Audit Template

Audit period:
Auditor:
Independence:
Scope:

Register Completeness

Classification and Tiering

Approval Authority

Due Diligence

Mission and Public Interest

Human Rights

Conflicts and Capture

Funding and In-Kind Resources

Government and Standards Claims

Developer and Evaluator Relationships

Data and Privacy

Intellectual Property

Publication Independence

Security and Confidentiality

Branding and Public Claims

Competition and Anti-Corruption

Complaints and Whistleblowing

Incidents and Corrections

Monitoring and Renewal

Suspension, Termination, and Exit

Critical Findings

Material Findings

Corrective Actions

Public Summary

81. Canonical Standards Body Partnership Positions

Standards Body adopts the following working positions.

Partnership is a governed relationship, not a prestige label.
Every material partnership should advance a defined public-interest purpose.
Mission outranks funding, access, visibility, and partner prestige.
A partnership should be used only when it produces value that unilateral work cannot provide as well.
Relationship types should be described precisely.
Vendor, contractor, funder, sponsor, liaison, collaborator, and partner should remain distinct.
Strategic partner is an authority-sensitive term requiring enhanced approval.
A relationship does not create endorsement.
A relationship does not create membership.
A relationship does not create certification.
A relationship does not create accreditation.
A relationship does not create governmental authority.
A relationship does not create international recognition.
Standards Body does not currently exercise public regulatory, certification, or accreditation authority.
Partner claims should preserve Standards Body's present institutional stage.
Every material relationship should identify authority that exists and authority that does not.
Private agreements should not create hidden public-governance authority.
A board-approved relationship does not imply approval of the partner generally.
Approval should scale with materiality.
Authority-shaping and entity-forming partnerships require constitutional review.
Partnership tier is a risk category, not a status reward.
A public announcement should not precede approval.
Due diligence should be proportionate to consequence and dependence.
Prestigious institutions should not receive reduced due diligence.
Government, nonprofit, academic, industry, and civil-society categories do not establish trust automatically.
Due diligence should examine actual ownership, conduct, authority, conflicts, security, rights, and exit.
Proposed partners should have an opportunity to respond to material adverse information.
Standards Body should decline relationships it lacks capacity to govern.
Public benefit should be identified beyond institutional growth.
Opportunity cost should be considered.
Human-rights due diligence should examine causation, contribution, and direct linkage.
Severe human-rights risk should receive priority.
Affected-party engagement should be capable of changing the decision.
Participation should be safe, accessible, timely, and nonretaliatory.
A technically useful partnership should not ignore severe public-interest harm.
Human-rights defenders, whistleblowers, workers, and researchers should be protected.
A grievance mechanism does not replace broader affected-party engagement.
Partnership should preserve access to remedy.
Independent judgment is a nonnegotiable institutional asset.
Independence should be assessed across governance, funding, methods, information, operations, publication, personnel, security, and politics.
Funding dependence and access dependence should be recorded.
Standards Body should diversify critical dependencies.
No partner should receive a permanent veto over institutional conclusions or corrections.
No partner should receive a governing seat solely because of funding or access.
Access providers should not threaten unrelated access to influence findings.
Material partnerships should receive capture review.
Institutional conflicts may exist even without individual conflicts.
A party benefiting from a standard should not control the standard.
A developer should not control an independent evaluation of its own system.
A funder should not control findings.
Advocacy commitments should be disclosed without automatic exclusion.
Unmanageable conflicts require refusal or termination.
Funding should support work, not purchase conclusions.
Result-dependent funding is prohibited.
Standards outcomes, accreditation decisions, certification decisions, and evaluation results should not be contingent-payment events.
In-kind resources should be valued and disclosed.
Model access, compute, staff, data, and facilities can create influence comparable to money.
Restricted funding should not create hidden ownership of the research agenda.
Material funding should be published under the transparency framework.
Government relationships should identify their exact legal or contractual form.
Research, advice, procurement, recognition, delegation, regulation, and enforcement should remain distinct.
Government collaboration should not be described as public authority without a valid basis.
Standards Body should remain capable of criticizing a government partner lawfully.
Political neutrality does not require silence concerning evidence or rights.
A delegated function requires legal basis, governance, competence, appeal, public notice, and identity change.
Standards liaisons should be described according to actual procedural rights.
Participation in a standards committee does not imply voting rights or adoption.
Joint work does not become an international standard merely because the parties operate internationally.
Standards partnerships should support transparency, openness, impartiality, consensus, relevance, coherence, and development.
Standards cooperation should reduce duplication.
Proprietary references should not become hidden barriers without justification.
Joint standards work should define process, copyright, maintenance, appeals, and status.
Competition law applies to standards and industry partnerships.
Evaluator partners should not design criteria solely to entrench their own market position.
Pilot qualification should not be described as accreditation.
Relationships with accreditation bodies should not make Standards Body an accreditation body.
Relationships with certification bodies should define the scheme and decision authority.
Assurance relationships should preserve role separation.
Frontier developer partnerships require enhanced review.
The exact model, system, version, access mode, and restrictions should be recorded.
Provider factual review should not become editorial veto.
Factual, confidentiality, security, legal, and methodological review comments should remain distinguishable.
Partner review periods should be time bounded.
Legitimate security embargoes should have defined release conditions.
Indefinite suppression of adverse findings is incompatible with independent public-interest research.
Developers should not use partnership status to claim approval, safety, certification, or endorsement.
Funding and access from the same developer should be disclosed together.
Comparative evaluation should use sufficiently comparable access conditions.
Task design and custody should remain independent where independent evaluation is claimed.
Academic prestige does not replace method, ethics, quality, or continuity.
Students and trainees should receive supervision, credit, protection, and nonretaliation.
Academic freedom should be preserved within lawful security and confidentiality limits.
University names should not imply institutional endorsement without authorization.
Civil-society participation should not be symbolic.
A civil-society partner should be compensated for meaningful work where appropriate.
One organization should not be presented as representing an entire community without mandate.
Participation does not imply community endorsement.
Civil-society partners should remain free to criticize Standards Body.
International partner diversity does not equal global consensus.
Regional partnerships should include local law, language, institutions, infrastructure, and affected-party knowledge.
International work should not extract expertise or data without durable local benefit.
Cross-border data sharing should address transfer, security, access, retention, and remedy.
Formal mutual recognition should not be claimed without an actual arrangement.
Donor influence should be visible.
Anonymous funding requires enhanced internal review.
Naming rights should not create permanent influence.
Funders should not receive technical decision rights merely because they financed the work.
Open-source communities can provide methods, review, and global participation.
Formal institutional obligations still require accountable maintainers or legal structures where necessary.
Open methods can coexist with protected tasks.
Repository participation does not imply endorsement by all contributors.
Ordinary vendors should be described as vendors.
Critical vendors require security, continuity, portability, and exit controls.
Protected information should not be submitted to unauthorized AI services.
Joint research should identify who controls question, method, analysis, publication, and correction.
A partner may contribute data without owning the conclusion.
A partner may disagree without erasing the institutional record.
Joint outputs should identify which parties approved which conclusions.
A bilateral technical document should not be presented as broad consensus.
Every joint work product should have an owner, version, source register, correction route, review date, and archive.
Data use should be lawful, necessary, purpose limited, and traceable.
Derived data rights should be defined.
Data should be returned, deleted, or retained according to law and agreement after exit.
Background and foreground intellectual property should remain distinct.
Public-interest work should remain inspectable and usable where lawful.
Standards should not depend unnecessarily on inaccessible proprietary rights.
Patent interests relevant to standards work should be disclosed under the applicable process.
Publication rights should be negotiated before work begins.
Partner review should protect facts, confidentiality, security, and law, not suppress supported criticism.
A partner should be able to publish a response.
Standards Body should retain correction authority over its own work.
Termination should not automatically suppress completed lawful research.
Confidentiality should protect legitimate secrets without becoming a shield for misconduct.
Protected-disclosure and legal-reporting exceptions should be preserved.
Security classification should be specific and reviewable.
Security should not be used as a pretext for reputation management.
Brand use should describe the relationship rather than manufacture authority.
Standards Body should not issue partnership badges resembling certification or accreditation marks.
Every logo use should include a relationship context where misunderstanding is plausible.
Post-exit brand use should be limited to accurate historical reference.
Joint communications should distinguish shared statements from attributed positions.
Partners may disagree publicly.
A steering committee should not control Standards Body's identity or independent conclusions.
Joint and reserved decisions should be defined.
Deadlock procedures should permit separate publication, scope reduction, or exit.
No joint process should prevent correction of a false statement.
Partnership agreements should address purpose, contributions, governance, independence, funding, data, intellectual property, publication, confidentiality, security, branding, monitoring, complaints, and exit.
Side agreements should not alter material public-interest controls without approval.
Payment should be for work, not favorable outcome.
Related-party transactions should be disclosed.
Partnerships should not facilitate price coordination, market allocation, boycotts, procurement manipulation, or exclusion.
Standards meetings should control exchange of commercially sensitive information.
Technical requirements should be justified by evidence rather than competitor exclusion.
Bribery and improper benefits are prohibited.
Intermediaries should receive due diligence.
Gifts, hospitality, future jobs, data access, and research funding may create improper influence.
Accurate books and records are required.
Serious corruption may require immediate termination.
Applicable sanctions and export controls should be reviewed.
A partnership should not be structured to evade law.
Standards Body may participate in policy processes without becoming a partisan campaign organization.
Joint lobbying should be disclosed where material.
A public official's participation does not imply government endorsement.
Environmental costs of compute, infrastructure, and travel should be considered.
Sustainability claims should be evidenced.
Accessibility should apply to meetings, documents, tools, comments, and outputs.
Language, time zone, bandwidth, and participation cost shape real inclusion.
A partnership claiming inclusion should provide practical participation access.
Material partnerships should appear in a public register.
Public summaries should identify purpose, funding, governance, data, intellectual property, publication, branding, and authority limits.
Protected details may remain confidential while a public minimum remains visible.
Ended partnerships should remain historically discoverable.
Monitoring should examine outcomes and risks, not only deliverables.
Partner self-reporting should not be the only monitoring source.
Renewal is a new decision.
Material ownership, funding, leadership, legal, security, and public-claim changes should trigger review.
Complaints should be available to affected parties and insiders.
A person implicated in a complaint should not control the investigation.
Good-faith reporting should be protected from retaliation.
Nondisparagement and confidentiality clauses should not prohibit lawful protected disclosure.
Material incidents should affect partnership status visibly.
An implicated partner should not control the complete incident investigation.
Public corrections should travel to every channel carrying the original claim.
Refusal to correct a materially false partnership claim may justify suspension or termination.
Suspension may be partial.
Critical risk may require immediate suspension.
Exit rights should protect evidence, people, data, publications, corrections, and continuity.
Partnerships should not become hostage relationships.
A change of control should trigger review.
Partnerships should not transfer automatically to a materially different legal entity.
Partner failure plans should preserve records and public status.
Partner count and funding volume are not legitimacy metrics.
Prestige does not offset a critical rights, authority, security, corruption, or independence failure.
Material partnerships should be auditable.
P4 and high-risk P3 relationships should receive independent review.
The present goal is a governed network, not a collection of logos.
Standards Body should prefer several bounded relationships over one dominant dependency.
It should remain possible to collaborate, disagree, correct, and leave.
Partnership history should not be erased after termination.
The ultimate partnership test is whether the relationship produces public value while leaving Standards Body able to tell the truth, govern itself, protect people, and exit without surrendering its institutional record.

82. Relationship to Other Canonical Files

`PROJECT_IDENTITY.md`

Controls Standards Body's mission, present stage, authority, nonauthority, and approved public descriptions.

No partnership may alter identity through implication.

`PROJECT_MANIFESTO.md`

Provides the long-term public-interest purpose against which partnership opportunities should be assessed.

`INSTITUTION_DESIGN.md`

Defines the distributed institutional ecosystem and the functions that should remain separated across partners.

`GOVERNANCE_FRAMEWORK.md`

Defines approval authority, reserved matters, conflicts, funding, major partnerships, government relationships, international governance, complaints, appeals, and institutional transitions.

`STANDARDS_DEVELOPMENT_PROCESS.md`

Governs standards liaisons, joint technical work, balance, consensus, public review, intellectual property, normative references, maintenance, and withdrawal.

`EVALUATOR_ACCREDITATION_FRAMEWORK.md`

Governs partnerships with evaluators, certification bodies, accreditation bodies, proficiency-testing providers, and assurance institutions.

`TRANSPARENCY_FRAMEWORK.md`

Defines public partnership summaries, funding disclosures, protected information, public minimums, incidents, corrections, and records.

`CONTRIBUTOR_FRAMEWORK.md`

Defines individual and institutional representative roles, conduct, access, credit, confidentiality, intellectual property, security, conflicts, and exit.

`WEBSITE_SOURCE_OF_TRUTH.md`

Defines public partnership pages, logo use, authority claims, status, structured data, corrections, and archives.

`SOURCES.md`

Defines due-diligence sources, source currentness, conflicting evidence, protected sources, and corrections.

`VERSION_HISTORY.md`

Defines partnership versions, status changes, agreement amendments, corrections, suspension, termination, and historical preservation.

`TERMINOLOGY.md`

Controls partnership, liaison, sponsor, funder, evaluator, accreditation, certification, recognition, and authority language.

`TAXONOMY.md`

Classifies partners, relationship types, contributions, risks, decisions, status, and institutional roles.

`EVIDENCE_STANDARDS.md`

Defines the evidence required for due diligence, public claims, research findings, conflict assessment, and partnership decisions.

`RESEARCH_METHODOLOGY.md`

Governs joint research design, sources, registration, ethics, analysis, review, publication, correction, and AI-tool use.

`EVALUATION_PHILOSOPHY.md`

Governs model-access and evaluator relationships, result interpretation, validity, uncertainty, and evaluation limits.

Foundation 1

Requires partnership control over protocol ownership, versioning, dynamic updates, comparability, and bridge studies.

Foundation 2

Requires controlled relationships for held-out tasks, secure access, custody, compromise, and protected evidence.

Foundation 3

Requires enhanced review for partnerships involving high-stakes capability evaluation and dangerous information.

Foundation 4

Requires independent expert review, conflict controls, publication rights, dissent, and appeals.

Foundation 5

Requires clear separation among evaluator, audit, certification, accreditation, scheme, and recognition functions.

Foundation 6

Requires partnership distinctions among research, guidance, standards, procurement, legal recognition, mandate, and enforcement.

Foundation 7

Requires funding, prestige, awards, rankings, and recognition relationships to resist gaming and capture.

Foundation 8

Requires international partnerships to preserve semantic, legal, technical, linguistic, and institutional interoperability without claiming universal authority.

83. Final Partnership Position

Standards Body will require partners.

It should not require borrowed authority.

The institution should be able to work with:

Governments without becoming a government
standards organizations without claiming standards status it does not possess
developers without becoming their evaluator of convenience
evaluators without controlling their accreditation
accreditation bodies without claiming accreditation authority
funders without selling conclusions
civil society without claiming complete community representation
universities without substituting prestige for evidence
international institutions without claiming global consensus
vendors without calling procurement a strategic alliance

The partnership system should make several questions easy to answer:

Why does the relationship exist?
What does each party contribute?
Who pays?
Who decides?
Who owns the work?
Who controls data?
Who controls publication?
What information is protected?
What authority exists?
What authority does not exist?
Which conflicts remain?
Who may complain?
What happens after an incident?
Can the relationship be corrected?
Can Standards Body leave?
What remains after exit?

A strong partner should not need Standards Body to exaggerate the relationship.

A strong Standards Body should not need a partner's logo to substitute for institutional competence.

The measure of a partnership is not closeness.

It is whether collaboration improves the work without degrading:

Truth
evidence
independence
rights
security
accessibility
due process
public accountability
institutional continuity

The defining partnership principle is:

Accept expertise, access, funding, implementation, and cooperation only under terms that preserve bounded authority, independent judgment, public-interest responsibility, truthful communication, and a credible right to exit.

References and Research Basis

[^ungp]: United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf

[^hrd-guidance]: United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights, The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Guidance on Ensuring Respect for Human Rights Defenders. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Formatted-version-of-the-guidance-EN_0.pdf

[^oecd-due]: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-business-conduct.htm

[^oecd-ai]: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD AI Principles, updated in May 2024. https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles

[^unesco-ai]: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence

[^coe-ai]: Council of Europe, Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, CETS No. 225. https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/the-framework-convention-on-artificial-intelligence

[^wto-tbt]: World Trade Organization, Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, including Annex 3, Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm

[^wto-six]: World Trade Organization, Technical Barriers to Trade Committee, Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/principles_standards_tbt_e.htm

[^iso-directives]: International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission, ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Procedures for the Technical Work, Consolidated ISO Supplement. https://www.iso.org/sites/directives/current/consolidated/index.html

[^nist-ai-rmf]: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 1.0 and associated resources. https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework

[^uncac]: United Nations, United Nations Convention against Corruption. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/

[^crpd]: United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities

[^iso26000]: International Organization for Standardization, ISO 26000:2010, Guidance on social responsibility. https://www.iso.org/standard/42546.html

[^iso37001]: International Organization for Standardization, ISO 37001:2025, Anti-bribery management systems, Requirements with guidance for use. https://www.iso.org/standard/37001

[^iso37301]: International Organization for Standardization, ISO 37301:2021, Compliance management systems, Requirements with guidance for use. https://www.iso.org/standard/75080.html

[^iso31000]: International Organization for Standardization, ISO 31000:2018, Risk management, Guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html

[^iso27001]: International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information security management systems, Requirements. https://www.iso.org/standard/27001

[^w3c-wcag]: World Wide Web Consortium, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/

Revision Record

Version 1.0

Date: July 16, 2026

Change type: Complete foundational edition

Summary: Establishes the canonical Standards Body partnership-governance framework. Defines present authority limits, partnership architecture, partner categories, relationship types, tiers, approval authority, intake, due diligence, mission and public-interest fit, human-rights review, independence, capture, conflicts, funding, government relationships, standards liaisons, evaluator and accreditation relationships, developer and model-provider relationships, academic partnerships, civil-society and affected-community participation, international and regional cooperation, philanthropic funding, open-source communities, vendors, joint research, standards work, evaluation access, data governance, intellectual property, publication rights, confidentiality, security, branding, public communications, decision rights, agreement architecture, procurement, competition, anti-corruption, sanctions, political activity, environmental considerations, accessibility, transparency, monitoring, complaints, whistleblowing, incidents, corrections, renewal, suspension, termination, continuity, metrics, audits, maturity, failure modes, objections, implementation, pilot design, scorecard, operational templates, canonical positions, cross-file relationships, primary references, and complete revision record.

Status: Approved foundational source.

Downloads

PDF, Version 1.0 SHA-256 01528e3e9577721f0d7d75a4e6f1837fdf5e550655631bb55d9c0a424f696d41
Markdown, Version 1.0 SHA-256 6084ff41a5c51fd4c72776d6f444b162cc987bf09e95baa2878e27c9e1a7999c
HTML, Version 1.0 SHA-256 e6a3dd60d3fba2aedb476538ddf6bbce998296642086d04341e95c7837d6db34

Citation and record

Standards Body. "Standards Body Partnership Principles." Institutional-design proposal, public edition, Version 1.0, July 17, 2026. https://standardsbody.ai/library/institutional-design/partnership-principles/

Canonical page: /library/institutional-design/partnership-principles/

Immutable Version 1.0: /library/institutional-design/partnership-principles/versions/1.0/

Corrections: [email protected]. Corrections, supersession, and withdrawal are recorded; released versions are preserved without silent edits.

Standards Body Institution Design Institutional-design proposal
Authority and Nonauthority Site page
Standards Body Project Identity Foundational source
The Foundations of Frontier AI Evaluation Infrastructure Foundational source