# PARTNERSHIP_PRINCIPLES.md # Standards Body Partnership Principles **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 ## 14.1 Conflict Categories - Financial - ownership - governance - employment - consulting - research - intellectual - personal - political - legal - competitive - future opportunity - access - publication - reputational ## 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 1. Protect people. 2. contain risk. 3. preserve evidence. 4. notify responsible functions. 5. classify. 6. investigate. 7. correct public records. 8. assess continuation. 9. notify affected parties. 10. 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 A large partner network does not establish mature partnership governance. --- # 58. Consolidated Partnership Failure Modes ## 58.1 Prestige Partnership Failure: A relationship is pursued primarily for the partner's name. Controls: - Purpose test - public-benefit test - opportunity-cost review ## 58.2 Logo Laundering Failure: A logo implies approval or authority. Controls: - Relationship label - design review - monitoring - takedown ## 58.3 Authority Inflation Failure: A government, standards, accreditation, or international relationship is described as recognition beyond its actual status. Controls: - Exact classification - legal review - public authority note - correction ## 58.4 Vendor Inflation Failure: An ordinary service provider is called a strategic partner. Controls: - Relationship taxonomy - procurement language - no prestige labels ## 58.5 Funder Capture Failure: Funding shapes conclusions or priorities improperly. Controls: - Restrictions - concentration limits - publication independence - diversification ## 58.6 Access Capture Failure: A model or data provider uses access to influence findings. Controls: - Access agreement - alternatives - disclosure - independent methods - termination ## 58.7 Standards Capture Failure: Beneficiaries of requirements control the standards process. Controls: - Balance - conflict rules - public review - consensus - appeals ## 58.8 Evaluator Market Capture Failure: Evaluator partners design criteria that entrench themselves. Controls: - Open criteria - multiple evaluators - public-interest review - accreditation separation ## 58.9 Government Instrumentalization Failure: Standards Body becomes a vehicle for one government's political agenda. Controls: - Mission - public classification - cross-government pluralism - independent publication ## 58.10 Civil-Society Tokenism Failure: Organizations are displayed as inclusive participants without meaningful influence. Controls: - Defined role - compensation - decision record - feedback disposition ## 58.11 Community Endorsement Inflation Failure: Participation by one organization is treated as endorsement by a whole community. Controls: - Representation limits - public wording - multiple engagement routes ## 58.12 Academic Prestige Substitution Failure: University affiliation replaces method and operational review. Controls: - Research governance - competence - quality - continuity ## 58.13 Joint-Publication Veto Failure: A partner suppresses adverse supported findings. Controls: - Publication clause - separate publication right - defined embargo - independent review ## 58.14 Factual-Review Expansion Failure: Partner factual review becomes editorial control. Controls: - Defined categories - comment log - deadline - final independent disposition ## 58.15 Indefinite Embargo Failure: Security review prevents publication indefinitely. Controls: - Maximum period - review - safe summary - escalation ## 58.16 Side Agreement Failure: An informal promise changes the governed relationship. Controls: - Entire-agreement clause - change approval - records ## 58.17 Hidden In-Kind Influence Failure: Compute, staff, data, or access is omitted from funding disclosure. Controls: - Valuation - register - conflict review ## 58.18 Exclusive Dependence Failure: One partner controls an essential capability. Controls: - Nonexclusivity - alternatives - transition - board review ## 58.19 No Exit Failure: Termination would destroy the institution's work. Controls: - Portability - archive - backup - credentials - continuity ## 58.20 Data Appropriation Failure: A partner acquires data beyond the approved purpose. Controls: - Purpose limitation - access logs - audit - deletion - sanctions ## 58.21 Intellectual-Property Lock-In Failure: Public-interest work becomes unusable after termination. Controls: - Licenses - background and foreground terms - archive rights - open formats ## 58.22 Confidentiality Overreach Failure: Confidentiality conceals misconduct or public-risk information. Controls: - Exceptions - protected disclosure - independent review - public minimum ## 58.23 Security Pretext Failure: Security is invoked to suppress criticism. Controls: - Specific classification - security reviewer - time limits - redaction ## 58.24 Partner Claim Drift Failure: A partner's public description expands gradually. Controls: - Monitoring - review rights - correction deadline - suspension ## 58.25 Stale Register Failure: Ended or suspended relationships remain active publicly. Controls: - Status automation - review dates - audit ## 58.26 Complaint Capture Failure: Partnership staff control complaints against themselves. Controls: - Independent route - escalation - governance reporting ## 58.27 Retaliation Failure: A contributor or whistleblower suffers harm for raising a concern. Controls: - Nonretaliation - protected channels - investigation - remedy - termination ## 58.28 Corruption Through Intermediary Failure: A local agent provides improper benefits. Controls: - Due diligence - contract - payment controls - audit ## 58.29 Competition Violation Failure: Standards or industry collaboration becomes unlawful coordination. Controls: - Counsel - agendas - minutes - information boundaries - open participation ## 58.30 Sanctions Evasion Failure: A partnership structure circumvents lawful restrictions. Controls: - Screening - legal review - suspension ## 58.31 Change-of-Control Neglect Failure: A partnership continues after acquisition without review. Controls: - Notification - reassessment - no automatic transfer ## 58.32 Partnership Permanence Failure: An old relationship continues without present purpose. Controls: - End date - renewal - outcome review - completion status ## 58.33 Partner Count as Legitimacy Failure: The institution uses partner volume to imply authority. Controls: - Anti-metric rule - precise claims - public testing ## 58.34 Global Representation Theater Failure: A geographically diverse logo list is presented as global consensus. Controls: - Participation data - authority limits - representation disclosure - development dimension ## 58.35 Partnership Before Capacity Failure: Standards Body accepts a relationship it cannot govern. Controls: - Capacity assessment - staged scope - decline - independent support ## 58.36 Exit Retaliation Failure: Parties use legal, financial, access, or reputational pressure to prevent truthful exit. 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 4: Partner-Type Modules - Government - standards - evaluator and accreditation - developer - academic - civil society - funder - international - vendor ## 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: 1. Frontier AI model-access provider 2. standards or accreditation institution 3. 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 ## Archive ## 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. 1. Partnership is a governed relationship, not a prestige label. 2. Every material partnership should advance a defined public-interest purpose. 3. Mission outranks funding, access, visibility, and partner prestige. 4. A partnership should be used only when it produces value that unilateral work cannot provide as well. 5. Relationship types should be described precisely. 6. Vendor, contractor, funder, sponsor, liaison, collaborator, and partner should remain distinct. 7. Strategic partner is an authority-sensitive term requiring enhanced approval. 8. A relationship does not create endorsement. 9. A relationship does not create membership. 10. A relationship does not create certification. 11. A relationship does not create accreditation. 12. A relationship does not create governmental authority. 13. A relationship does not create international recognition. 14. Standards Body does not currently exercise public regulatory, certification, or accreditation authority. 15. Partner claims should preserve Standards Body's present institutional stage. 16. Every material relationship should identify authority that exists and authority that does not. 17. Private agreements should not create hidden public-governance authority. 18. A board-approved relationship does not imply approval of the partner generally. 19. Approval should scale with materiality. 20. Authority-shaping and entity-forming partnerships require constitutional review. 21. Partnership tier is a risk category, not a status reward. 22. A public announcement should not precede approval. 23. Due diligence should be proportionate to consequence and dependence. 24. Prestigious institutions should not receive reduced due diligence. 25. Government, nonprofit, academic, industry, and civil-society categories do not establish trust automatically. 26. Due diligence should examine actual ownership, conduct, authority, conflicts, security, rights, and exit. 27. Proposed partners should have an opportunity to respond to material adverse information. 28. Standards Body should decline relationships it lacks capacity to govern. 29. Public benefit should be identified beyond institutional growth. 30. Opportunity cost should be considered. 31. Human-rights due diligence should examine causation, contribution, and direct linkage. 32. Severe human-rights risk should receive priority. 33. Affected-party engagement should be capable of changing the decision. 34. Participation should be safe, accessible, timely, and nonretaliatory. 35. A technically useful partnership should not ignore severe public-interest harm. 36. Human-rights defenders, whistleblowers, workers, and researchers should be protected. 37. A grievance mechanism does not replace broader affected-party engagement. 38. Partnership should preserve access to remedy. 39. Independent judgment is a nonnegotiable institutional asset. 40. Independence should be assessed across governance, funding, methods, information, operations, publication, personnel, security, and politics. 41. Funding dependence and access dependence should be recorded. 42. Standards Body should diversify critical dependencies. 43. No partner should receive a permanent veto over institutional conclusions or corrections. 44. No partner should receive a governing seat solely because of funding or access. 45. Access providers should not threaten unrelated access to influence findings. 46. Material partnerships should receive capture review. 47. Institutional conflicts may exist even without individual conflicts. 48. A party benefiting from a standard should not control the standard. 49. A developer should not control an independent evaluation of its own system. 50. A funder should not control findings. 51. Advocacy commitments should be disclosed without automatic exclusion. 52. Unmanageable conflicts require refusal or termination. 53. Funding should support work, not purchase conclusions. 54. Result-dependent funding is prohibited. 55. Standards outcomes, accreditation decisions, certification decisions, and evaluation results should not be contingent-payment events. 56. In-kind resources should be valued and disclosed. 57. Model access, compute, staff, data, and facilities can create influence comparable to money. 58. Restricted funding should not create hidden ownership of the research agenda. 59. Material funding should be published under the transparency framework. 60. Government relationships should identify their exact legal or contractual form. 61. Research, advice, procurement, recognition, delegation, regulation, and enforcement should remain distinct. 62. Government collaboration should not be described as public authority without a valid basis. 63. Standards Body should remain capable of criticizing a government partner lawfully. 64. Political neutrality does not require silence concerning evidence or rights. 65. A delegated function requires legal basis, governance, competence, appeal, public notice, and identity change. 66. Standards liaisons should be described according to actual procedural rights. 67. Participation in a standards committee does not imply voting rights or adoption. 68. Joint work does not become an international standard merely because the parties operate internationally. 69. Standards partnerships should support transparency, openness, impartiality, consensus, relevance, coherence, and development. 70. Standards cooperation should reduce duplication. 71. Proprietary references should not become hidden barriers without justification. 72. Joint standards work should define process, copyright, maintenance, appeals, and status. 73. Competition law applies to standards and industry partnerships. 74. Evaluator partners should not design criteria solely to entrench their own market position. 75. Pilot qualification should not be described as accreditation. 76. Relationships with accreditation bodies should not make Standards Body an accreditation body. 77. Relationships with certification bodies should define the scheme and decision authority. 78. Assurance relationships should preserve role separation. 79. Frontier developer partnerships require enhanced review. 80. The exact model, system, version, access mode, and restrictions should be recorded. 81. Provider factual review should not become editorial veto. 82. Factual, confidentiality, security, legal, and methodological review comments should remain distinguishable. 83. Partner review periods should be time bounded. 84. Legitimate security embargoes should have defined release conditions. 85. Indefinite suppression of adverse findings is incompatible with independent public-interest research. 86. Developers should not use partnership status to claim approval, safety, certification, or endorsement. 87. Funding and access from the same developer should be disclosed together. 88. Comparative evaluation should use sufficiently comparable access conditions. 89. Task design and custody should remain independent where independent evaluation is claimed. 90. Academic prestige does not replace method, ethics, quality, or continuity. 91. Students and trainees should receive supervision, credit, protection, and nonretaliation. 92. Academic freedom should be preserved within lawful security and confidentiality limits. 93. University names should not imply institutional endorsement without authorization. 94. Civil-society participation should not be symbolic. 95. A civil-society partner should be compensated for meaningful work where appropriate. 96. One organization should not be presented as representing an entire community without mandate. 97. Participation does not imply community endorsement. 98. Civil-society partners should remain free to criticize Standards Body. 99. International partner diversity does not equal global consensus. 100. Regional partnerships should include local law, language, institutions, infrastructure, and affected-party knowledge. 101. International work should not extract expertise or data without durable local benefit. 102. Cross-border data sharing should address transfer, security, access, retention, and remedy. 103. Formal mutual recognition should not be claimed without an actual arrangement. 104. Donor influence should be visible. 105. Anonymous funding requires enhanced internal review. 106. Naming rights should not create permanent influence. 107. Funders should not receive technical decision rights merely because they financed the work. 108. Open-source communities can provide methods, review, and global participation. 109. Formal institutional obligations still require accountable maintainers or legal structures where necessary. 110. Open methods can coexist with protected tasks. 111. Repository participation does not imply endorsement by all contributors. 112. Ordinary vendors should be described as vendors. 113. Critical vendors require security, continuity, portability, and exit controls. 114. Protected information should not be submitted to unauthorized AI services. 115. Joint research should identify who controls question, method, analysis, publication, and correction. 116. A partner may contribute data without owning the conclusion. 117. A partner may disagree without erasing the institutional record. 118. Joint outputs should identify which parties approved which conclusions. 119. A bilateral technical document should not be presented as broad consensus. 120. Every joint work product should have an owner, version, source register, correction route, review date, and archive. 121. Data use should be lawful, necessary, purpose limited, and traceable. 122. Derived data rights should be defined. 123. Data should be returned, deleted, or retained according to law and agreement after exit. 124. Background and foreground intellectual property should remain distinct. 125. Public-interest work should remain inspectable and usable where lawful. 126. Standards should not depend unnecessarily on inaccessible proprietary rights. 127. Patent interests relevant to standards work should be disclosed under the applicable process. 128. Publication rights should be negotiated before work begins. 129. Partner review should protect facts, confidentiality, security, and law, not suppress supported criticism. 130. A partner should be able to publish a response. 131. Standards Body should retain correction authority over its own work. 132. Termination should not automatically suppress completed lawful research. 133. Confidentiality should protect legitimate secrets without becoming a shield for misconduct. 134. Protected-disclosure and legal-reporting exceptions should be preserved. 135. Security classification should be specific and reviewable. 136. Security should not be used as a pretext for reputation management. 137. Brand use should describe the relationship rather than manufacture authority. 138. Standards Body should not issue partnership badges resembling certification or accreditation marks. 139. Every logo use should include a relationship context where misunderstanding is plausible. 140. Post-exit brand use should be limited to accurate historical reference. 141. Joint communications should distinguish shared statements from attributed positions. 142. Partners may disagree publicly. 143. A steering committee should not control Standards Body's identity or independent conclusions. 144. Joint and reserved decisions should be defined. 145. Deadlock procedures should permit separate publication, scope reduction, or exit. 146. No joint process should prevent correction of a false statement. 147. Partnership agreements should address purpose, contributions, governance, independence, funding, data, intellectual property, publication, confidentiality, security, branding, monitoring, complaints, and exit. 148. Side agreements should not alter material public-interest controls without approval. 149. Payment should be for work, not favorable outcome. 150. Related-party transactions should be disclosed. 151. Partnerships should not facilitate price coordination, market allocation, boycotts, procurement manipulation, or exclusion. 152. Standards meetings should control exchange of commercially sensitive information. 153. Technical requirements should be justified by evidence rather than competitor exclusion. 154. Bribery and improper benefits are prohibited. 155. Intermediaries should receive due diligence. 156. Gifts, hospitality, future jobs, data access, and research funding may create improper influence. 157. Accurate books and records are required. 158. Serious corruption may require immediate termination. 159. Applicable sanctions and export controls should be reviewed. 160. A partnership should not be structured to evade law. 161. Standards Body may participate in policy processes without becoming a partisan campaign organization. 162. Joint lobbying should be disclosed where material. 163. A public official's participation does not imply government endorsement. 164. Environmental costs of compute, infrastructure, and travel should be considered. 165. Sustainability claims should be evidenced. 166. Accessibility should apply to meetings, documents, tools, comments, and outputs. 167. Language, time zone, bandwidth, and participation cost shape real inclusion. 168. A partnership claiming inclusion should provide practical participation access. 169. Material partnerships should appear in a public register. 170. Public summaries should identify purpose, funding, governance, data, intellectual property, publication, branding, and authority limits. 171. Protected details may remain confidential while a public minimum remains visible. 172. Ended partnerships should remain historically discoverable. 173. Monitoring should examine outcomes and risks, not only deliverables. 174. Partner self-reporting should not be the only monitoring source. 175. Renewal is a new decision. 176. Material ownership, funding, leadership, legal, security, and public-claim changes should trigger review. 177. Complaints should be available to affected parties and insiders. 178. A person implicated in a complaint should not control the investigation. 179. Good-faith reporting should be protected from retaliation. 180. Nondisparagement and confidentiality clauses should not prohibit lawful protected disclosure. 181. Material incidents should affect partnership status visibly. 182. An implicated partner should not control the complete incident investigation. 183. Public corrections should travel to every channel carrying the original claim. 184. Refusal to correct a materially false partnership claim may justify suspension or termination. 185. Suspension may be partial. 186. Critical risk may require immediate suspension. 187. Exit rights should protect evidence, people, data, publications, corrections, and continuity. 188. Partnerships should not become hostage relationships. 189. A change of control should trigger review. 190. Partnerships should not transfer automatically to a materially different legal entity. 191. Partner failure plans should preserve records and public status. 192. Partner count and funding volume are not legitimacy metrics. 193. Prestige does not offset a critical rights, authority, security, corruption, or independence failure. 194. Material partnerships should be auditable. 195. P4 and high-risk P3 relationships should receive independent review. 196. The present goal is a governed network, not a collection of logos. 197. Standards Body should prefer several bounded relationships over one dominant dependency. 198. It should remain possible to collaborate, disagree, correct, and leave. 199. Partnership history should not be erased after termination. 200. 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.