Scoring Factor (SF)

A Scoring Factor (SF) is one assessment question together with the information needed to interpret and answer it. Its explanations, criteria, references, and structured records belong to the same SF. The hierarchy is Catalog → Scoring Factor Set (SFS) → SF.

Each set contains sixteen SFs, indexed 0 through F. An SF's resolved assessment result is one bit; sixteen such results form the set's four-digit hexadecimal encoding.

Define one assessable question

The question must ask about one condition, allow a yes/no answer, use plain language, and stay within 512 characters. A positive answer means that the stated condition is satisfied.

Keep the short question separate from its plain-language explanation and technical description, while ensuring that all three express the same condition. The definition also needs a title, keywords, clarifications, references, and an explicit evidence rule.

A reference solution explains how a condition might be met. An assistance prompt can help develop or interpret the definition. Neither supplies an assessment outcome. See question records for the proposed field groups and authoring process.

Identify one question

SF 1 in SFS 2 occupies the recovery set's question position 1. The identifiers below refer to that same position, but use different ordering conventions.

The leading 1 in (1)_12 is an example result, not an outcome recorded in the current placeholder. Explicit sfsId and sfId fields avoid ambiguity. A position or filename alone does not identify a frozen catalog edition; preserve the author, language, and edition alongside it, as described in versioning.

Current repository placeholder

The question currently stored in repo-sf/en/0021.json is:

[Placeholder] Has the condition for SF 1 in "Backup and Disaster Recovery Plan" been satisfied?

The following selected fields are copied from that draft record. This is a partial draft excerpt, not a final schema or a completed assessment. Other signer slots, explanations, publishing fields, and metadata are omitted here.

{
  "schemaVersion": "0.1-draft",
  "recordType": "sf-authoring",
  "isPlaceholder": true,
  "identity": {
    "language": "en",
    "sfsId": "2",
    "sfId": "1",
    "repoId": "0021"
  },
  "question": {
    "shortBinaryQuestion": "[Placeholder] Has the condition for SF 1 in \"Backup and Disaster Recovery Plan\" been satisfied?"
  },
  "signatures": {
    "signerA": {
      "vote": null,
      "isBiased": false,
      "fullName": null,
      "timestamp": null,
      "text": null
    }
  },
  "review": {
    "status": "draft",
    "approvals": []
  },
  "resultScore": null
}

The actual placeholder has no defined assessment criterion, system boundary, evidence period, required evidence, or acceptable alternatives. It reserves a question position and needs authoring and review before use.

Manuscript recovery example

The manuscript illustrates a possible recovery question:

Has the required recovery test succeeded during the review period?

Its illustrative authoring excerpt uses sfsId: "2" and sfId: "1", with the illustrative release label groupa/en/26a. This hypothetical design example is separate from the repository placeholder above; it is not the current wording of record 0021, a released definition, or a completed test.

To make the example assessable, define the service boundary, review period, recovery objectives, required test records, success and failure criteria, and acceptable alternatives. A backup schedule alone does not demonstrate a successful restoration. An absent uploaded report requires clarification rather than an automatic negative judgment.

Assess a separate instance

The reusable authoring record defines the question. A separate operational instance names the exact definition version, assessed system, evidence period, evidence references, and assessor judgments. Content approval under review approves the definition; it does not establish that a service satisfies it.

Either one or three assessors record their judgments and reasons. Ordinary judgments use 0 or 1; marked judgments use 0+ or 1+ and follow the manuscript's priority and tie-breaking rules. Only the resolved 0 or 1 enters the profile. The plus marks and individual reasoning remain in the supporting record. See assessment for the full resolution rules.

Null votes, names, timestamps, explanations, and resultScore mean unfilled, not an assessed failure. The placeholder's unused isBiased: false records no judgment or confidence. Missing, conflicting, or insufficient evidence and applicability questions stay pending until resolved under the evidence rule; the binary encoding has no pending symbol.

Once a supported result is resolved, place its bit at the SF's fixed position within its SFS. Encoding explains the sixteen-bit order and four hexadecimal digits. The full operational instance schema and validation rules remain to be specified separately from the draft authoring design.