Standards Body · Institutional-design proposal, public edition · Released July 17, 2026

Canonical record: https://standardsbody.ai/library/institutional-design/partnership-principles/

Standards Body is an independent research and institutional-design project. It is not currently a regulator, accreditation body, certification body, or governmental authority. This document is research; it is not an adopted standard.

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 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:

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

Standards Body may need partners to obtain:

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:

A partnership can improve:

A partnership can also create:

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:

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

Material Partnership Test

A relationship is material when it could reasonably affect:

Material partnerships require enhanced review and public disclosure.

Core Partnership Requirements

Every material partnership should have:

No Implied Endorsement

A partnership should not imply that:

Developer and Model-Provider Partnerships

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

The agreement should state:

The developer may review reports for:

The developer should not control:

Government Partnerships

A government relationship should identify whether it is:

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:

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:

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:

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:

Exit

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

Agreements should permit suspension or termination after:

Exit should protect:

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

2.2 Ordinary Transactions

An ordinary purchase may not require partnership treatment.

It becomes partnership-like when it creates:

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:

4.2 Identity Layer

Defines:

4.3 Relationship Layer

Defines the exact relationship type.

4.4 Authority Layer

Defines:

4.5 Contribution Layer

Defines:

4.6 Risk Layer

Assesses:

4.7 Agreement Layer

Creates enforceable or documented terms proportionate to the relationship.

4.8 Operating Layer

Defines:

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:

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

5.2 Standards Organizations

5.3 Evaluation and Assurance Institutions

5.4 AI Developers and Deployers

5.5 Academic and Research Institutions

5.6 Civil Society and Public-Interest Organizations

5.7 Affected Communities

5.8 Philanthropic and Funding Institutions

5.9 Professional and Technical Communities

5.10 Infrastructure and Service 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:

Approval:

6.2 Consultation

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.3 Research Collaboration

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.4 Standards Liaison

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.5 Model or Data Access Relationship

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.6 Evaluation Collaboration

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.7 Funding Relationship

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.8 Government Advisory Relationship

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.9 Implementation Partnership

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.10 Strategic Partnership

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.11 Vendor Relationship

Characteristics:

Approval:

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

6.12 Exclusive Partnership

Characteristics:

Approval:

6.13 Joint Venture or New Entity

Characteristics:

Approval:

7. Partnership Tiers

Tier P0: Contact

No partnership.

Examples:

Tier P1: Bounded Collaboration

Examples:

Requirements:

Tier P2: Program Partnership

Examples:

Requirements:

Tier P3: Material Strategic Partnership

Examples:

Requirements:

Tier P4: Authority-Shaping or Entity-Forming Relationship

Examples:

Requirements:

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:

8.2 Executive Authority

The executive may approve:

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:

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:

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:

9.2 Identity Verification

Verify:

9.3 Duplicate and Existing Relationship Check

Identify:

9.4 Preliminary Screening

Screen for:

9.5 Intake Outcome

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:

10.2 Core Review Domains

Identity and Ownership

Mission and Conduct

Authority

Financial

Human Rights

Technical

Legal and Regulatory

Security and Privacy

Public Claims

Exit

10.3 Evidence Sources

Use:

10.4 Adverse Information

Adverse information should be:

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

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:

11.2 Necessity Test

Ask:

11.3 Public-Benefit Test

Identify:

11.4 Mission Drift

Reject or narrow relationships that primarily advance:

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:

12.3 Salience

Prioritize severe risks based on:

12.4 Affected-Party Engagement

Meaningful engagement should be:

12.5 Human-Rights Defenders

Review whether the relationship may expose or silence:

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:

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:

13. Independence and Capture Controls

13.1 Independence Dimensions

Assess:

13.2 Capture Pathways

A partner may influence Standards Body through:

13.3 Dependency Register

Material dependencies should identify:

13.4 Diversification

Standards Body should avoid material dependence on one:

13.5 Independent Workstream Control

Partnership-funded work should preserve:

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:

13.9 Capture Response

Controls may include:

13.10 Capture Audit

P3 and P4 relationships should receive periodic capture review.

14. Conflicts of Interest

14.1 Conflict Categories

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:

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

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

15.3 Funding Record

Record:

15.4 Prohibited Funding Conditions

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:

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:

16.2 Authority Source

Identify:

16.3 No Authority Inflation

Do not use:

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:

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:

16.8 Government Funding

Disclose:

16.9 Delegated Function

A delegated function requires:

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

17.3 Procedural Rights

State whether Standards Body may:

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:

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:

17.8 Normative References

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

17.9 Joint Standards Work

Define:

17.10 Competition

Standards collaboration should avoid exclusionary agreements and anticompetitive conduct.

18. Evaluator, Certification, and Accreditation Relationships

18.1 Evaluator Relationship

Possible purposes:

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:

It does not make Standards Body an accreditation body.

18.4 Certification Relationship

A certification-body partnership should define:

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:

18.9 Registry

Material assurance relationships should appear in the partnership register.

18.10 Role Separation

Standards Body should not simultaneously:

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:

19.2 Required Agreement Fields

19.3 Evaluation Independence

The developer may not control:

19.4 Factual Review

A developer may review:

Factual review should have:

19.5 Access Withdrawal

The agreement should state:

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:

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:

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:

20.2 Risks

20.3 Research Governance

Define:

20.4 Students and Trainees

Protect:

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:

21. Civil-Society and Affected-Community Partnerships

21.1 Purpose

These relationships should improve:

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:

21.5 Power Imbalance

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

21.6 Safety

Protect participants from:

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:

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:

22.4 Local Expertise

International work should include:

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:

22.8 Translation

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

22.9 Cross-Border Data

Address:

22.10 Recognition

Do not imply formal mutual recognition without an actual arrangement.

23. Philanthropic and Funder Partnerships

23.1 Due Diligence

Review:

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:

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:

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:

25.3 Contract Requirements

25.4 Vendor Branding

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

25.5 Lock-In

Maintain:

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:

26.2 Research Independence

A partner may contribute expertise and evidence.

It should not control the result merely because it provided:

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:

26.6 Methods

State whether methods are:

26.7 Data Analysis

Preserve independent access to the analysis necessary to verify conclusions.

26.8 Review Rights

Partner review should distinguish:

26.9 Disagreement

The agreement should permit:

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:

27.2 Process Control

The agreement should identify:

27.3 No Private Standard by Partnership Label

A bilateral agreement should not be represented as broad consensus.

27.4 Joint Working Groups

Define:

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:

27.8 Adoption

Each party should state whether it:

28. Evaluation and Model-Access Partnerships

28.1 Evaluated Object

The agreement should identify:

28.2 Access Equality

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

28.3 Access Record

Preserve:

28.4 Task Independence

Protected task design and custody should remain governed independently.

28.5 Safety Controls

Define:

28.6 Publication Embargo

An embargo may protect:

It should have:

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:

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:

29.5 Data Quality

Define:

29.6 Personal Data

Address:

29.7 Sensitive and Protected Data

Use enhanced:

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:

29.11 Derived Data

Define ownership and use of:

29.12 Data Audit

Material data partnerships should permit verification of compliance.

30. Intellectual Property and Licensing

30.1 Intellectual-Property Inventory

Identify:

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:

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:

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:

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

31.4 Impermissible Control

A partner should not:

31.5 Publication Delay

A limited delay may be justified for:

31.6 Publication Veto

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

Any exception requires:

31.7 Partner Response

A partner may publish a response.

31.8 Joint Publication

Identify:

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:

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:

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:

33. Security

33.1 Security Review

Required when the partnership involves:

33.2 Security Responsibilities

Allocate:

33.3 Shared Environment

Define:

33.4 Personnel Security

Address:

33.5 Supply Chain

Review subcontractors and technical dependencies.

33.6 Security Incident

Define:

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:

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:

requires written approval.

34.3 Permitted Relationship Language

Examples:

34.4 Prohibited Language

Without exact basis:

34.5 Partner Logo

A logo may be displayed only with:

34.6 Logo Placement

Design should not imply:

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:

35.2 Joint Statement

A joint statement should identify whether each statement is:

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:

36.2 Terms of Reference

Define:

36.3 Decision Classes

Standards Body Reserved

Partner Reserved

Joint

36.4 Deadlock

Define:

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:

37.4 Contributions

Define each party's:

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:

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:

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

39.3 Standards Meetings

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

39.4 Commercially Sensitive Information

Do not share unnecessary:

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:

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

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:

41.2 Controlled Technology

Frontier AI work may involve:

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:

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:

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:

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

45.3 Protected Information

The public register may omit or generalize:

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:

45.7 Government Disclosure

State the precise legal or contractual basis.

45.8 Partnership Status

Use:

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:

46.2 Monitoring Inputs

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:

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

46.10 Review Record

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

47. Complaints and Concerns

47.1 Who May Complain

47.2 Complaint Subjects

47.3 Intake

Record:

47.4 Independent Handling

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

47.5 Interim Action

Possible actions:

47.6 Investigation

Use competent, conflict-screened investigators.

47.7 Outcome

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

48.2 Reporting Channels

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

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:

49.7 Status

The partnership register should reflect suspension or termination promptly.

49.8 Post-Incident Review

Assess:

50. Correction of Partnership Claims and Outputs

50.1 Correction Scope

Corrections may affect:

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:

50.4 Propagation

Update:

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:

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

52.2 Scope

Suspension may apply to:

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

53.2 Notice

Define ordinary notice and immediate termination.

53.3 Exit Plan

Address:

53.4 Joint Work

Determine whether work will:

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:

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

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:

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

55.2 Independence Metrics

55.3 Integrity Metrics

55.4 Participation Metrics

55.5 Security and Data Metrics

55.6 Financial Metrics

55.7 Exit Metrics

55.8 Anti-Metric Rule

Do not treat:

as proof of institutional legitimacy.

56. Partnership Audit

56.1 Audit Scope

56.2 Audit Sample

Include:

56.3 Audit Questions

56.4 Critical Findings

56.5 Corrective Action

Assign:

56.6 Independent Audit

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

57. Partnership Maturity Model

Level 0: Informal Association

Characteristics:

Level 1: Documented Collaboration

Characteristics:

Level 2: Governed Partnership System

Characteristics:

Level 3: Public-Interest Partnership Network

Characteristics:

Level 4: Internationally Interoperable Network

Characteristics:

Level 5: Adaptive Institutional Ecosystem

Characteristics:

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:

58.2 Logo Laundering

Failure:

A logo implies approval or authority.

Controls:

58.3 Authority Inflation

Failure:

A government, standards, accreditation, or international relationship is described as recognition beyond its actual status.

Controls:

58.4 Vendor Inflation

Failure:

An ordinary service provider is called a strategic partner.

Controls:

58.5 Funder Capture

Failure:

Funding shapes conclusions or priorities improperly.

Controls:

58.6 Access Capture

Failure:

A model or data provider uses access to influence findings.

Controls:

58.7 Standards Capture

Failure:

Beneficiaries of requirements control the standards process.

Controls:

58.8 Evaluator Market Capture

Failure:

Evaluator partners design criteria that entrench themselves.

Controls:

58.9 Government Instrumentalization

Failure:

Standards Body becomes a vehicle for one government's political agenda.

Controls:

58.10 Civil-Society Tokenism

Failure:

Organizations are displayed as inclusive participants without meaningful influence.

Controls:

58.11 Community Endorsement Inflation

Failure:

Participation by one organization is treated as endorsement by a whole community.

Controls:

58.12 Academic Prestige Substitution

Failure:

University affiliation replaces method and operational review.

Controls:

58.13 Joint-Publication Veto

Failure:

A partner suppresses adverse supported findings.

Controls:

58.14 Factual-Review Expansion

Failure:

Partner factual review becomes editorial control.

Controls:

58.15 Indefinite Embargo

Failure:

Security review prevents publication indefinitely.

Controls:

58.16 Side Agreement

Failure:

An informal promise changes the governed relationship.

Controls:

58.17 Hidden In-Kind Influence

Failure:

Compute, staff, data, or access is omitted from funding disclosure.

Controls:

58.18 Exclusive Dependence

Failure:

One partner controls an essential capability.

Controls:

58.19 No Exit

Failure:

Termination would destroy the institution's work.

Controls:

58.20 Data Appropriation

Failure:

A partner acquires data beyond the approved purpose.

Controls:

58.21 Intellectual-Property Lock-In

Failure:

Public-interest work becomes unusable after termination.

Controls:

58.22 Confidentiality Overreach

Failure:

Confidentiality conceals misconduct or public-risk information.

Controls:

58.23 Security Pretext

Failure:

Security is invoked to suppress criticism.

Controls:

58.24 Partner Claim Drift

Failure:

A partner's public description expands gradually.

Controls:

58.25 Stale Register

Failure:

Ended or suspended relationships remain active publicly.

Controls:

58.26 Complaint Capture

Failure:

Partnership staff control complaints against themselves.

Controls:

58.27 Retaliation

Failure:

A contributor or whistleblower suffers harm for raising a concern.

Controls:

58.28 Corruption Through Intermediary

Failure:

A local agent provides improper benefits.

Controls:

58.29 Competition Violation

Failure:

Standards or industry collaboration becomes unlawful coordination.

Controls:

58.30 Sanctions Evasion

Failure:

A partnership structure circumvents lawful restrictions.

Controls:

58.31 Change-of-Control Neglect

Failure:

A partnership continues after acquisition without review.

Controls:

58.32 Partnership Permanence

Failure:

An old relationship continues without present purpose.

Controls:

58.33 Partner Count as Legitimacy

Failure:

The institution uses partner volume to imply authority.

Controls:

58.34 Global Representation Theater

Failure:

A geographically diverse logo list is presented as global consensus.

Controls:

58.35 Partnership Before Capacity

Failure:

Standards Body accepts a relationship it cannot govern.

Controls:

58.36 Exit Retaliation

Failure:

Parties use legal, financial, access, or reputational pressure to prevent truthful exit.

Controls:

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

Phase 2: Agreement Infrastructure

Phase 3: Material Partnership Governance

Phase 4: Partner-Type Modules

Phase 5: Public Infrastructure

Phase 6: Resilience and Exit

Phase 7: Audit and International Interoperability

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

61.4 Comparative Questions

61.5 Success Criteria

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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:

The partnership system should make several questions easy to answer:

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:

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.