Assessment and validation
An operational assessment applies a defined Scoring Factor (SF) to a particular system and evidence period. Either one person or three people assess the condition, each signing their judgment and recording the reasons. Once the judgments are resolved, the final answer is 0 or 1 and can enter the profile.
Separate content review from assessment
Reviewing a question and assessing a service are distinct activities:
| Activity | What is reviewed | What the result means |
|---|---|---|
| Content review | The SF's wording, explanations, evidence rule, and references. | The question definition has been reviewed; no system outcome follows. |
| Operational assessment | Evidence for a specified system, question version, and review period. | The condition is satisfied or not satisfied after assessor resolution. |
In the proposed authoring record, review records content-review status. Signer slots and resultScore remain unfilled: null means unfilled, not failure. The full operational assessment schema and validation rules remain to be specified separately from the proposed authoring structure.
Reference solutions explain how a condition might be met. Approval of that guidance does not demonstrate that a service has implemented it successfully. See templates for the record design and versioning for question identity.
Record evidence and judgments
An assessment instance needs the exact definition version, the system boundary, the evidence period, evidence references, assessor identities, and the reasons for each judgment. Explanations are particularly useful when judgments differ or an assessor marks a strongly held judgment.
Each assessor chooses an ordinary or marked judgment:
| Judgment | Meaning |
|---|---|
0 | Ordinary judgment: the condition is not satisfied. |
1 | Ordinary judgment: the condition is satisfied. |
0+ | Marked negative judgment, with priority under the resolution rules. |
1+ | Marked positive judgment, with priority under the resolution rules. |
The manuscript's original term for a marked judgment is “biased.” The plus sign describes its role in resolution; it is neither an extra outcome value nor a statistical confidence level. The proposed isBiased flag represents this convention in an operational instance; its default false value in an unused authoring template records no assessment.
Each person signs their judgment, but recording a name does not implement a cryptographic signature. Attribution and agreement do not, by themselves, prove control effectiveness.
Apply the priority rules
The methodology orders judgments as follows. Each notation pair lists the negative and positive alternatives, not simultaneous outcomes.
| Priority | Judgments | Negative or positive notation |
|---|---|---|
1 — highest | Three agreeing marked judgments | 0+++ or 1+++ |
2 | Two agreeing marked judgments | 0++ or 1++ |
3 | One marked judgment | 0+ or 1+ |
4 | Three agreeing ordinary judgments | 000 or 111 |
5 | Two agreeing ordinary judgments | 00 or 11 |
6 — lowest | Single assessor | 0 or 1 |
With three ordinary judgments, the majority determines the result. A marked judgment takes priority over ordinary judgments, and two agreeing marked judgments take priority over one opposing marked judgment. With a single assessor, the resolved outcome follows that person's judgment; any plus mark stays in the supporting record.
Opposing marked judgments
If two assessors submit opposing marked judgments, 0+ and 1+, and the third submits an ordinary judgment, that ordinary judgment breaks the tie. The result is independent of assessor order.
| Assessor judgments | Final result | Reason |
|---|---|---|
0, 1, 1 | 1 | Ordinary majority. |
0+, 1, 1 | 0 | One marked judgment takes priority over ordinary judgments. |
1+, 1+, 0+ | 1 | Two agreeing marked judgments take priority. |
0+, 1+, 0 | 0 | Opposing marked judgments tie; the ordinary negative breaks the tie. |
0+, 1+, 1 | 1 | Opposing marked judgments tie; the ordinary positive breaks the tie. |
These are resolution rules, not evidence that a marked judgment is correct. Keep every assessor's judgment and reasoning in the record even after the final answer is resolved.
Keep unresolved findings outside the profile
Insufficient or conflicting evidence, partial fulfillment, and applicability questions need explanation and resolution under the evidence rule. A missing uploaded record does not automatically establish a negative outcome. Pending findings remain outside the binary encoding until resolved.
For example, a backup schedule alone does not establish that the required restoration test succeeded. The assessor needs the test evidence for the specified service and period. If that evidence remains unresolved, the finding stays pending; if the accepted evidence demonstrates success, the final outcome is 1; if it demonstrates failure, the final outcome is 0.
Only the resolved 0 or 1 enters the fixed bit position described in assessment encoding. Plus marks, individual votes, reasons, and pending states remain in the supporting assessment record. Qualitative assessment explains that evidence context, and requirement masks shows how resolved answers are checked against selected requirements.