# Conduct Ecosystem Open Questions

## Priority 1: Foundation decisions

| ID | Question | Why it matters | Planned resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| OQ-001 | Do people correctly understand the working `1.00–5.00` CQ, its two decimals, scope, evidence state, and limitations—and what mapping, persistence, and change explanation support that understanding? | Review Gate 1 selects a numerical CQ as the product surface, but familiar formatting can import false assumptions about precision, distribution, judgment, and rank. | Human comprehension, emotional-response, accessibility, cross-cultural, and real-data replay studies. |
| OQ-002 | Does the L4 bounded overall-CQ architecture remain valid, useful, fair, necessary, comprehensible, and lawful with real context families, or should overall CQ be narrowed or rejected? | Suite L establishes structural possibility only; cross-context scoring remains one of the highest construct, legal, ethical, and universal-score risks. | Only after company- and context-specific evidence, exact mappings, independent replication, legal analysis, consumer research, fairness testing, and explicit go/no-go review. |
| OQ-003 | Which benefits are approved, restricted, or prohibited? | A benefit can become functionally punitive when it affects meaningful price, access, or essential service. | Benefit taxonomy in Waves 2–3. |
| OQ-004 | What qualifies a person for initial participation? | Age, guardianship, identity assurance, device access, and jurisdiction affect fairness and implementation. | Identity and eligibility work in Wave 3. |

## Priority 2: Core-system decisions

| ID | Question | Why it matters | Planned resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| OQ-101 | What is the final NCS response window? | Immediate capture reduces recall bias, while a longer window supports mobile and complex workflows. | Pilot testing; working assumption is 24 hours. |
| OQ-102 | Should Definitely not require a structured reason category, and which categories are safe and useful? | Appeals need context, but an extra step adds burden and may introduce new bias. | Rater testing and legal review. |
| OQ-103 | What disclosure delay and grouping rules best balance consumer transparency with employee safety? | Immediate detailed disclosure can identify and expose individual employees to retaliation. | Consumer-rights and governance design. |
| OQ-104 | Should businesses use census sampling, random sampling, or support both certified models? | Sampling design directly affects comparability and manipulation risk. | Pilot design. |
| OQ-105 | What interaction-level cap should apply when multiple employees submit eligible responses? | Multi-employee service journeys contain useful evidence but can overwhelm independent events. | Simulation and pilot testing. |
| OQ-106 | What minimum evidence threshold is required before NCS is displayed or used? | Small samples produce unstable and easily misinterpreted results. | Confidence modeling and consumer research. |
| OQ-107 | How should issuer, role, culture, and context calibration work without normalizing bias? | Node-level Z-scores may create unstable or inequitable adjustments. | Synthesis modeling and fairness review. |
| OQ-108 | How are employee anonymity, accountability, and safety balanced in independent appeals? | Consumers need meaningful evidence while employees need protection from retaliation. | Governance specification. |
| OQ-109 | Which operational events are eligible for VCI, and which are prohibited proxies? | VCI can reproduce inequality even without explicit protected traits. | VCI event taxonomy and equity review. |
| OQ-110 | How are business-caused failures, disputed events, corrections, and reversals represented? | Operational events change state and cannot be treated as permanent facts. | VCI event lifecycle. |
| OQ-111 | How should NCS and VCI confidence change with sample size and data quality? | New users, small businesses, rare events, and inconsistent issuers require calibrated uncertainty. | Synthesis model. |
| OQ-112 | How should recency, redemption, patterns, and abrupt risk clusters interact? | Simple decay can hide recent problems or erase meaningful history. | Synthesis model and simulations. |
| OQ-113 | What production coefficients, calibration, sufficiency rules, display mapping, and context boundaries should instantiate the K3 one-scope and L4 overall families? | Suites K and L select structural families, not production parameters or real mappings. | Real-data replay, human research, exact context studies, fairness analysis, and independent review. |
| OQ-114 | Which responsibility units and operational events are approved in the first industry profile? | VCI must be specific enough to implement without letting each business redefine good conduct. | Pilot-industry selection and event-taxonomy workshop. |
| OQ-115 | Which evidence standard and finalizing authority apply to each materially adverse event class? | A timestamp, a damage allegation, and an intentional-fraud claim require different levels of proof. | Legal, governance, and event-schema design. |
| OQ-116 | Does routine fulfillment count positively, establish confidence only, or do both under capped rules? | The answer determines whether VCI measures demonstrated reliability or primarily records material exceptions. | Simulation and consumer research. |
| OQ-117 | What caps prevent frequent or expensive transactions from creating a wealth and loyalty advantage? | Portability will be inequitable if high-volume consumers can buy stronger conduct histories. | VCI and synthesis simulation. |
| OQ-118 | When does a missed commitment remain neutral because of emergency, accessibility, business failure, or insufficient consumer control? | Exceptions must be humane and consistent without requiring invasive personal disclosure. | Industry-profile, privacy, and governance design. |
| OQ-119 | How quickly must issuers provide notice, correction, reversal, and first-line dispute resolution? | Operational records can change after initial issuance and delays can affect current benefits. | Governance service-level design. |
| OQ-120 | Which VCI facts may appear directly to consumers, proof verifiers, auditors, and appellate reviewers? | Evidence access must support due process without exposing unnecessary personal or proprietary data. | Disclosure and privacy specification. |
| OQ-121 | Should VCI ever present a consumer-facing 0–100 number, or remain an internal evidence profile feeding CQ? | A visible number improves legibility but may falsely imply universal precision. | Consumer-experience research and synthesis design. |
| OQ-122 | Does one prominent K3 CQ with separately inspectable inputs remain more understandable, valid, and emotionally tolerable than the two-dimensional and proof-only controls? | The product contract selects one score, but synthetic structure cannot establish human meaning or legitimacy. | Comparative prototype, cognitive, accessibility, cross-cultural, and field research. |
| OQ-123 | What minimum evidence, confidence, diversity, and independence thresholds apply to company-, industry-, and overall CQ? | Thresholds determine when portability is legitimate and when the system must say insufficient history. | Simulation and pilot validation. |
| OQ-124 | Which industries belong to the same approved context family, and what transfer values apply between them? | Context mapping defines whether conduct earned in one setting is relevant in another. | Taxonomy design, legal review, and empirical validation. |
| OQ-125 | What evidence gate, if any, permits L4 overall CQ to move from shadow research after company- and context-specific CQ? | Overall CQ is excluded from the initial live pilot; the unresolved question is whether it ever earns later release. | Context-specific pilot evidence, source-set validation, comprehension, fairness, necessity, proportionality, and legal review. |
| OQ-126 | What are the initial recency functions and half-lives by evidence class? | Decay affects forgiveness, current relevance, dormancy, manipulation, and confidence. | Longitudinal simulation and pilot testing. |
| OQ-127 | What independent-event definition and concentration caps apply to interactions, issuers, corporate families, and platforms? | Raw event count can materially overstate corroboration. | Data-lineage design and simulation. |
| OQ-128 | What evidence combination, if any, should trigger a rapid-change review state? | The system must detect meaningful change without producing false danger labels or behavioral spirals. | False-positive testing, governance review, and benefit-policy design. |
| OQ-129 | What happens to an approved benefit while a synthesis result is recalculated, disputed, or placed in rapid-change review? | Even an upside-only system can become punitive if earned benefits disappear without process. | CQ disclosure and benefit-policy specification. |
| OQ-130 | Which confidence labels and explanations do consumers and businesses understand accurately? | Confidence must communicate evidence strength without appearing to grade a person's worth. | Consumer and verifier research. |
| OQ-131 | What proof policies require minimum performance in both NCS and VCI, and when may one dimension be irrelevant? | A combined average can conceal weaknesses that matter for a particular benefit. | CQ and approved-benefit taxonomy design. |
| OQ-132 | What noncommercial paths let an inactive consumer reestablish sufficient current evidence? | Redemption and recency should not pressure people to buy more transactions. | Pilot and equity design. |
| OQ-133 | Does K3 with the ten-point research cap outperform K6 and alternative cap values on real validity, fairness, stability, manipulation resistance, and explanation? | Suite K selected the family and next setting, not a final coefficient or production model. | Preregistered real-data replay, cap sensitivity, independent methodological review, and pilot shadow analysis. |
| OQ-134 | What exact one-score interface, input explanation, scope selector, non-score-state language, and change history make CQ understandable without inviting constant monitoring or moral grading? | The default hierarchy is selected, but product execution determines comprehension, anxiety, gaming, and transparency. | Comparative UX, language, accessibility, and longitudinal-use research. |
| OQ-135 | Which consumer-facing labels communicate conduct and confidence without grading human worth? | Terms such as Exceptional or Developing may be intuitive but can sound moralizing. | Language research with consumers and frontline employees. |
| OQ-136 | What is the initial catalog of approved, restricted, and prohibited CQ benefits? | “Upside only” does not prevent coercion when a benefit has material economic or access value. | Benefit taxonomy, legal review, and pilot-partner design. |
| OQ-137 | What constitutes a reasonable baseline service in each pilot industry, and how is baseline degradation detected? | Businesses must not create friction and then require CQ to remove it. | Industry benchmarks, consumer research, and OCA audit design. |
| OQ-138 | What grace period applies when a future proof or benefit becomes unavailable? | Immediate loss may punish consumers before they can understand or challenge a change. | Benefit-specific policy and legal review. |
| OQ-139 | Which proof request fields, consent flow, and recurring-permission controls produce genuine informed choice? | A technically voluntary system can still use dark patterns or repeated prompting. | UX testing and privacy review. |
| OQ-140 | When may a consumer reveal named competitor history, and which receiving-business uses are allowed? | Named relationships increase portability and narrative power but expose sensitive commercial and personal information. | Competition, privacy, and consumer research. |
| OQ-141 | Which proofs must work offline, and how short must their validity be? | Travel, hospitality, and frontline contexts may have limited connectivity, while offline proofs increase replay risk. | Technical architecture and pilot workflow design. |
| OQ-142 | Which non-smartphone and assisted presentation methods meet security, privacy, accessibility, and cost requirements? | Consumer control cannot depend on owning or operating a modern personal device. | Identity, recovery, and accessibility design. |
| OQ-143 | Who issues CQ credentials and operates proof verification in the initial model? | Trust, liability, revocation, availability, and economics depend on the issuer and verifier architecture. | Identity, governance, and operating-model design. |
| OQ-144 | Which data and presentation records can a withdrawing consumer delete, export, or require to be anonymized? | Consumer control must be reconciled with issuer, audit, security, and legal retention obligations. | Privacy and legal specification. |
| OQ-145 | What step-up authentication is proportionate for each proof and benefit class? | A thank-you and a reduced financial deposit should not require identical identity assurance. | Identity and security threat modeling. |
| OQ-146 | What minimum triage is required before a questioned adverse event enters formal disputed state? | Review must prevent premature harm without allowing every general disagreement to freeze all eligible evidence. | Governance design and pilot testing. |
| OQ-147 | What service levels apply to explanation, automated review, issuer review, independent appeal, and urgent benefit correction? | A nominal right is not meaningful if review arrives after the interaction or benefit expires. | Governance operating model. |
| OQ-148 | What evidence may reviewers request from consumers, employees, businesses, and system operators at each review level? | Review should be accurate without becoming burdensome, invasive, or confrontational. | Evidence rules and privacy review. |
| OQ-149 | Which events, proofs, and active benefits pause, continue, or transition during each type of challenge? | The effect of review must balance due process, consumer value, and strategic misuse. | Benefit and dispute policy. |
| OQ-150 | Which reviewer handles company-specific CQ, cross-company synthesis, proof-policy, and systemic-bias challenges? | Different disputes require independence from different actors and distinct expertise. | OCA governance and appeals design. |
| OQ-151 | What qualifies as a material challenge requiring human decision, and which obvious errors may be resolved automatically? | Human review should protect consequential cases without creating unnecessary delay for routine corrections. | Governance triage design and pilot data. |
| OQ-152 | What disclosure delay, grouping, redaction, and interaction-detail rules best protect employees from indirect identification? | Removing a name may not protect an employee when the consumer remembers the exact encounter. | Employee safety, labor, and consumer-rights design. |
| OQ-153 | What support, rotation, supervision, and escalation controls protect reviewers handling high-conflict or disturbing material? | Reviewer fatigue and secondary trauma can affect both wellbeing and decision quality. | Appeals operating model. |
| OQ-154 | What threshold opens a systemic case, and who authorizes collective correction, notification, and remedy? | Shared failures should be corrected consistently without waiting for individual appeals. | OCA investigation and enforcement design. |
| OQ-155 | Which time-sensitive benefits require continuation, replacement, compensation, or expedited review? | A successful appeal is hollow if the trip, stay, or transaction has already ended. | Benefit taxonomy and remedy policy. |
| OQ-156 | Does the +10, +3, -3, -10 graduated NCS model outperform conviction-net and direction-net alternatives across comprehension, construct validity, stability, cultural response styles, manipulation, and fairness? | The whole-number model preserves direction and strength without fractions, but the 10:3 ratio remains an empirical hypothesis rather than a natural law. | Structural and parameter simulation, cognitive interviews, vignette research, localization, and pilot validation. |

## Priority 3: Trust, governance, and infrastructure decisions

| ID | Question | Why it matters | Planned resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| OQ-201 | Where are signed events stored, and where is CQ calculated? | Privacy, integrity, offline use, recovery, and regulatory roles depend on the architecture. | Identity, privacy, and security specification. |
| OQ-202 | Which privacy-preserving identity-continuity and duplicate-resistance methods should the pilot use? | Device biometrics do not establish global uniqueness, while centralized biometric deduplication creates disproportionate risk. | Identity-provider evaluation and threat modeling. |
| OQ-203 | How are credentials revoked, rotated, recovered, and transferred between devices? | A consumer-controlled asset must survive device loss without enabling theft or reset abuse. | Credential lifecycle design. |
| OQ-204 | How does selective disclosure prevent businesses from correlating presentations across contexts? | A technically private proof can still become a tracking identifier. | Privacy threat model. |
| OQ-205 | Who hears first-line disputes, independent appeals, and systemic complaints? | Due process requires clear responsibility, deadlines, evidence rules, and remedies. | Governance operating model. |
| OQ-206 | How are participating businesses certified, audited, sanctioned, suspended, and reinstated? | Network trust depends on enforceable business obligations. | OCA specification. |
| OQ-207 | Which stakeholder groups receive formal governance representation and voting authority? | Enterprise and consumer representation alone omit frontline workers and other affected groups. | OCA governance design. |
| OQ-208 | Which jurisdictions and legal regimes define the initial pilot boundary? | Privacy, automated decisions, consumer reporting, discrimination, biometrics, and competition laws vary materially. | Legal workstream. |
| OQ-209 | Which identity, authentication, and federation assurance profiles apply to enrollment, ordinary proof use, high-value benefits, and recovery? | One fixed assurance level would either underprotect valuable actions or overburden ordinary participation. | Digital identity risk assessment. |
| OQ-210 | Which issuer-local, pairwise, interaction, credential, and proof identifiers are required, and how are they derived and rotated? | Identifier design determines continuity, correlation risk, revocation, and interoperability. | Privacy architecture and prototype. |
| OQ-211 | Should the pilot use a consumer-held, custodial, or hybrid credential wallet? | The choice affects accessibility, recovery, privacy, availability, liability, and time to pilot. | Architecture comparison and user research. |
| OQ-212 | Which credential format, cryptographic suite, issuance protocol, presentation protocol, and conformance profile should be selected? | Standards provide multiple choices and interoperability requires a precise tested profile. | Technical proof of concept and independent review. |
| OQ-213 | Are DIDs necessary, and if so, which DID method satisfies privacy, key rotation, recovery, availability, and governance requirements? | DID syntax alone does not provide decentralization, privacy, or fit for purpose. | Architecture evaluation. |
| OQ-214 | Which duplicate-detection signals and matching techniques provide acceptable accuracy without creating a centralized tracking or biometric system? | Reset resistance must be balanced against false matches, exclusion, and surveillance. | Prototype, privacy analysis, and disparate-impact testing. |
| OQ-215 | What are the approved identity reproofing, cooling-off, notification, and appeal rules for total authenticator loss? | Recovery is both a major security vulnerability and an essential access path. | Recovery threat modeling and usability testing. |
| OQ-216 | Which credential-status approach best balances freshness, offline use, scale, and unlinkability? | Per-consumer status checks can reveal presentations, while long-lived offline credentials increase stale-proof risk. | Status-method prototype and privacy testing. |
| OQ-217 | Where are signed events, audit traces, identity bindings, and status records stored in the pilot and long-term architecture? | Data location and custody determine breach impact, legal roles, availability, and consumer control. | Data-flow mapping and architecture decision. |
| OQ-218 | Which proof and credential actions require local biometric activation, passkey authentication, step-up verification, or no reauthentication? | Security must be proportionate to benefit value and device context. | Assurance-profile and UX testing. |
| OQ-219 | How are children, guardians, caregivers, incapacitated adults, shared accounts, and deceased participants handled? | Authority and identity continuity vary materially across these cases and jurisdictions. | Legal, identity, and delegation policy. |
| OQ-220 | Which wallet and data-export requirements guarantee continuity if a provider fails or a consumer changes platforms? | A consumer-controlled asset cannot depend permanently on one vendor. | Interoperability and exit-plan design. |
| OQ-221 | What retention periods apply to identity proofing, signed events, credentials, presentations, disputes, security logs, and fairness data? | Retention must support rights and audit while limiting breach and surveillance risk. | Data-protection impact assessment and legal review. |
| OQ-222 | Which security, privacy, accessibility, and interoperability certifications are required before pilot and production? | Independent assurance must be concrete and proportional rather than a generic trust claim. | OCA certification and implementation planning. |
| OQ-223 | Which nonprofit or mission-locked legal form and jurisdiction best fit OCA? | Legal form affects fiduciary duties, tax, membership, enforcement, international participation, and asset protection. | Specialist nonprofit, standards, and international legal advice. |
| OQ-224 | What Board size, seat allocation, nomination process, terms, and removal rules create durable stakeholder balance? | Representation can become symbolic or captured if the mechanics are weak. | Founding governance design and stakeholder consultation. |
| OQ-225 | What supermajority and cross-stakeholder approval is required for core-rights, model, benefit, and governance changes? | Different decisions warrant different protection from narrow majorities. | Charter and standards-process design. |
| OQ-226 | Which founding roles and time-limited rights should the originator hold? | The idea benefits from coherent stewardship but cannot become permanently unilateral infrastructure. | Founding charter and succession planning. |
| OQ-227 | Which OCA functions may share staff during the pilot, and what decision, data, and conflict barriers are mandatory? | Early efficiency must not collapse independent audit, enforcement, and appeal. | Pilot governance operating model. |
| OQ-228 | What funding concentration cap, fee structure, reserve, and remedy funding model preserve independence and accessibility? | OCA must survive the exit or pressure of major commercial members. | Financial model and governance review. |
| OQ-229 | What public-review periods, consensus rules, formal-objection process, and voting thresholds govern standards? | Rulemaking needs enough rigor without becoming too slow to correct harms. | Standards-process charter. |
| OQ-230 | Which production roles, event classes, and benefit types require separate certification profiles? | Certification must map to actual risks and responsibilities. | Conformance and assurance design. |
| OQ-231 | How are auditors selected, rotated, paid, monitored, and prevented from opinion shopping? | Audit independence can fail through economic dependence and repeat relationships. | Assurance-office design. |
| OQ-232 | Which appeal providers or panels serve each jurisdiction and subject matter, and how are they funded? | True independence requires expertise, availability, and separation from original actors. | Rights and Appeals Council design. |
| OQ-233 | What provisional service levels and remedies apply to time-sensitive, standard, and systemic matters? | Review must conclude while relief can still matter. | Appeal operations and pilot testing. |
| OQ-234 | What sanction authority can OCA enforce contractually, financially, technically, and through certification marks? | Remedies must be credible without exceeding legal authority. | Participation agreements and legal review. |
| OQ-235 | What emergency-action duration, review deadline, renewal threshold, and after-action reporting are appropriate? | Emergency power needs speed and automatic limits. | Charter and tabletop exercises. |
| OQ-236 | What information remains confidential in audits, appeals, enforcement, and incidents, and who can review those classifications? | Privacy and security cannot become broad excuses for opacity. | Information-classification and oversight policy. |
| OQ-237 | Which standards, code, models, test suites, marks, and patents use public, royalty-free, or fair licensing terms? | Interoperability depends on implementable rights and protection from hidden essential claims. | Intellectual-property and patent policy. |
| OQ-238 | What aggregate, synthetic, controlled, or privacy-preserving access can independent researchers receive? | External scrutiny improves legitimacy but can expose consumers, workers, and security controls. | Research-access framework. |
| OQ-239 | Which global rights floor and regional profiles apply in the first jurisdictions? | Regional implementation must accommodate law without silently weakening foundational protections. | Legal workstream and pilot selection. |
| OQ-240 | What metrics demonstrate actual consumer and worker power rather than nominal representation? | Seats and consultation do not prove that affected groups influence outcomes. | Governance evaluation framework. |
| OQ-241 | What exact public language distinguishes the founder-led Open Conduct project from the proposed future Open Conduct Alliance? | The sites should inspire participation without implying that an independent institution already exists. | Marketing and website architecture. |
| OQ-242 | What single feedback and interest intake should Stage 0 use, and what review cadence is sustainable for the founder? | An open project can create an unmanageable support burden unless participation is structured. | Stage 0 operating plan and website design. |
| OQ-243 | Which Stage 0 artifacts are public at launch: specification, decision register, open questions, change log, contribution guide, or roadmap? | Transparency must be useful without creating a maintenance burden or overwhelming general readers. | Documentation and website strategy. |
| OQ-244 | What signals justify forming the first advisory circle, and which perspectives are essential in its first five to eight participants? | The circle should emerge from credible commitment rather than ceremonial recruitment. | Contributor-intake review after launch. |
| OQ-245 | Should a simple Massachusetts entity exist before material funding or contracts, even while OCA remains a future institution? | Liability, banking, domains, contracting, and intellectual property may justify a lightweight founder entity earlier. | Massachusetts and federal legal advice. |
| OQ-246 | How are the specification, marks, domains, contributions, and project assets held before and during transfer to a future OCA? | Early clarity avoids contributor disputes and founder lock-in later. | Intellectual-property and succession planning. |
| OQ-247 | What concrete checklist authorizes movement from each stage to the next? | Stage labels are useful only if they prevent premature collection, scoring, credentialing, and benefit use. | Pilot-readiness and governance gate design. |
| OQ-248 | Under the intended architecture, which entities and outputs are consumer reporting agencies, furnishers, users, consumer reports, or outside FCRA coverage? | CQ directly concerns character and behavior used in business eligibility decisions. | Specialist FCRA and state consumer-reporting opinion before Stage 3. |
| OQ-249 | Does consumer-controlled, verifier-bound benefit proof presentation materially change consumer-reporting classification? | Architecture may affect the analysis but cannot be assumed to create an exemption. | Legal opinion and possible regulator engagement. |
| OQ-250 | Which federal and state privacy, profiling, automated-decision, biometric, breach, and data-broker laws apply to the first pilot? | Obligations follow residents, data, thresholds, and uses rather than founder location alone. | Jurisdictional legal matrix. |
| OQ-251 | Which Massachusetts entity, privacy notice, information-security program, contracts, and insurance are appropriate at each early stage? | The founder is in Massachusetts, but obligations depend on the data and operations actually undertaken. | Massachusetts counsel. |
| OQ-252 | Which public claims may conduct.is and openconduct.org make before simulation, research, pilot, and production evidence exists? | Strong language can create misleading implied claims even when framed as an idea. | Marketing legal review and claim substantiation file. |
| OQ-253 | What accessibility standard and testing process apply to the sites, specification, consumer UX, employee prompt, and appeals? | Accessibility must cover communication and outcomes, not only code conformance. | Accessibility and legal review. |
| OQ-254 | Which initial benefits are legally low-risk enough for pilot, and which require consumer-reporting, public-accommodations, financial, or competition analysis? | The benefit—not just the score—determines practical and legal impact. | Benefit-by-benefit review. |
| OQ-255 | Which protected classes, proxy risks, and outcome standards apply in each pilot jurisdiction and industry? | Public-accommodations and discrimination protections differ across jurisdictions and contexts. | Civil-rights and legal impact assessment. |
| OQ-256 | What employee notice, consent, compensation, consultation, bargaining, data-access, and anti-retaliation rules apply to NCS? | Employees are workers in an employer-controlled system, not merely rating-interface users. | Labor and employment review. |
| OQ-257 | What media, defamation, privacy, and publisher liability attaches to NCS responses and CQ inferences? | Structured subjective input and calculated conclusions create different risks from merely hosting comments. | Media and tort counsel. |
| OQ-258 | What trademark, contribution, specification-license, patent, domain, and future-transfer structure should Stage 0 adopt? | The project must accept help without losing control or preventing later independent stewardship. | Intellectual-property counsel. |
| OQ-259 | Which adult age threshold, identity evidence, guardianship exclusions, and protected-population controls apply to the first pilot? | Adult-only narrows risk but still requires precise eligibility and accessibility rules. | Pilot legal and identity design. |
| OQ-260 | Which project activities constitute research involving human subjects or require independent ethics review? | Experiments on conduct, workers, and benefits may create obligations beyond ordinary product testing. | Research counsel and institutional review advice. |
| OQ-261 | Which contracts, insurance, reserves, and authority make corrections, replacement benefits, compensation, and collective remedies real? | A paper right without an accountable and solvent remedy provider is inadequate. | Operating and legal model. |
| OQ-262 | What legal-change monitoring process keeps state and federal requirements current? | Privacy, automated-decision, biometric, child, labor, and AI rules are changing rapidly. | OCA legal program and regional profiles. |
| OQ-263 | Which accounts, domains, repositories, newsletter services, forms, and social channels belong in the Stage 0 critical-service inventory? | A solo founder cannot protect or recover dependencies that have not been identified. | Stage 0 operating checklist and website launch. |
| OQ-264 | Which feedback fields, retention period, privacy notice, moderation rules, and deletion workflow keep Stage 0 intake useful but low risk? | The project should invite ideas without accidentally collecting disputes, identity evidence, worker details, or sensitive stories. | Website and feedback-form design. |
| OQ-265 | What backup frequency, restoration test, account recovery plan, and trusted emergency access are proportionate for Stage 0? | Founder device loss or incapacity should not erase or strand the public project. | Stage 0 continuity exercise. |
| OQ-266 | What risk-scoring method combines likelihood, severity, scale, reversibility, detectability, speed, and distributional harm? | A simple likelihood-times-impact matrix can systematically underweight hidden or irreversible rights harms. | Risk-method workshop and independent review. |
| OQ-267 | Which threats and controls must be public, and which precise detection thresholds or response details require controlled disclosure? | Excessive secrecy prevents accountability, while full operational detail can enable evasion. | Security-transparency policy. |
| OQ-268 | What authentication, recovery, duplicate-resistance, and holder-binding profile applies to each identity and benefit risk class? | Security must resist theft and reset without imposing invasive proofing on low-risk use. | Architecture prototype and adversarial testing. |
| OQ-269 | What anomaly patterns may trigger investigation, temporary proof restriction, or step-up checks, and what false-positive limits apply? | Abuse controls must not become undisclosed conduct judgments or disproportionately burden particular groups. | Fraud, fairness, and legal testing. |
| OQ-270 | What event-selection and missingness tests reveal whether a business is issuing only favorable evidence or suppressing reversals? | Authentic individual records can still produce a manipulated dataset. | Issuer audit and simulation. |
| OQ-271 | What evidence-concentration, collusion, farming, and threshold-gaming tests are required for each CQ context? | Portable scores can be manipulated through coordinated but formally valid activity. | Model simulation and pilot red team. |
| OQ-272 | Which credential validity, nonce, audience, holder-binding, status, and offline-use rules apply to each benefit class? | Replay, copying, stale proof, and verifier correlation have different tradeoffs by value and connectivity. | Credential proof of concept and privacy testing. |
| OQ-273 | Which baseline-parity metrics, sampling cadence, alert thresholds, and stop rules apply after a benefit launches? | OQ-137 defines the baseline; continuing evidence must show that nonparticipants do not receive slower, costlier, or less respectful treatment in practice. | Benefit monitoring, mystery shopping, outcome analysis, and complaints. |
| OQ-274 | Which privileged actions require dual authorization, independent notice, or automatic suspension, and where are audit logs held? | Insider manipulation and log tampering can affect many people before ordinary monitoring detects it. | Production security architecture. |
| OQ-275 | What government-request review, challenge, consumer notice, data-preservation, and transparency-reporting policy applies by jurisdiction? | Compelled access and function creep must be anticipated before sensitive data exists. | Legal, privacy, and governance design. |
| OQ-276 | Which vendors are critical, what substitutable interfaces and export formats are required, and how will exit be tested? | Wallet, cloud, identity, model, communications, or status-provider failure cannot strand consumers or benefits. | Vendor architecture, contracting, and continuity exercise. |
| OQ-277 | What incident classes and service levels apply to security, privacy, model, fairness, retaliation, governance, and availability failures? | A broader threat model needs response duties beyond conventional breach notification. | Incident-response and operating-model design. |
| OQ-278 | Which critical incidents require collective correction, benefit replacement, compensation, independent investigation, or public after-action reporting? | Systemic harm cannot depend on every affected person discovering and challenging the same defect. | Remedy framework and tabletop exercises. |
| OQ-279 | What independent red-team composition, access, cadence, reporting, remediation, and retest rules apply before pilot and production? | Review must include affected humans and institutional misuse, not only penetration testing. | Pre-pilot assurance plan. |
| OQ-280 | Should and when should the project operate a vulnerability-disclosure or bug-bounty program? | External reporting can improve security but requires safe scope, triage capacity, legal terms, and remediation resources. | Stage 2 security plan. |

## Priority 4: Pilot and operating-model decisions

| ID | Question | Why it matters | Planned resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| OQ-301 | Which platform-and-operator coalition best meets the common pilot-readiness rubric? | Industry fit alone is insufficient; the pilot needs accounts, attributable interactions, employee workflow, reliable data, protected workers, a low-risk benefit, and governance acceptance. | Platform-first Stage 1 discovery and Stage 2 candidate comparison. |
| OQ-302 | What is the smallest implementation for each Stage 3 release that still provides all required rights, review, security, audit, rollback, and exit functions? | The full portability ecosystem is unnecessary for early releases, but “minimum” cannot mean omitting protections. | Release architecture and readiness design. |
| OQ-303 | Who pays for issuance, calculation, verification, audits, and governance? | The network needs durable economics without creating incentives to inflate or suppress scores. | Operating model. |
| OQ-304 | Which metrics demonstrate value and safety? | Adoption alone cannot establish fairness, accuracy, or legitimacy. | Success-measure framework. |
| OQ-305 | Within the leading platform coalition, which single interaction and final state should serve as the first concrete Stage 2 design candidate? | A platform may span many workflows, but the pilot needs one attributable event boundary. | Candidate-partner data and workflow assessment. |
| OQ-306 | Which jurisdictional profile should govern the first live pilot, and which consumers, workers, businesses, and data flows fall within it? | Founder and partner location alone do not determine applicable consumer, labor, privacy, accessibility, and reporting law. | Legal matrix and partner selection. |
| OQ-307 | Which businesses are operationally independent enough to establish a real portability test? | Two brands under one parent, platform, franchise authority, or decision maker may not demonstrate independent trust transfer. | Ownership, control, data, and governance analysis. |
| OQ-308 | What exact NCS and VCI event taxonomy is necessary for the first pilot hypothesis? | Every additional event introduces causation, evidence, worker, review, and fairness complexity. | Stage 2 taxonomy workshop and simulation. |
| OQ-309 | Which worker roles may provide NCS, and what sampling, compensation, voluntariness, timing, and manager-access rules apply? | Frontline input must be operationally usable without becoming unpaid labor, surveillance, or management pressure. | Worker research, labor review, and partner workflow testing. |
| OQ-310 | How will consumers be recruited without overrepresenting frequent, affluent, digitally fluent, highly loyal, or unusually agreeable customers? | A convenient sample could make the system appear more accessible, fair, and effective than it is. | Recruitment plan and independent research review. |
| OQ-311 | What sample size, event volume, issuer diversity, subgroup coverage, and statistical power are required for each release question? | One universal sample target would be either wasteful or inadequate across technical, comprehension, fairness, and business hypotheses. | Pre-pilot statistical analysis plan. |
| OQ-312 | How long must the baseline period, shadow release, private-view release, benefit release, and portability release run? | Duration must capture recurrence, reversals, dormancy, operational incidents, learning, and support burden without creating indefinite experimentation. | Power, operational, and longitudinal analysis. |
| OQ-313 | Which activities are ordinary product research, human-subject research, or regulated experimentation, and what independent review is required? | Consent, publication, vulnerable populations, employment relationships, and real benefits can change the research posture. | Specialist research and legal review. |
| OQ-314 | What compensation and expense support should consumers, workers, advisers, and reviewers receive without creating participation pressure or biased response? | Unpaid participation shifts power, while excessive incentives can compromise voluntariness. | Research ethics and operating-budget design. |
| OQ-315 | What exact baseline-parity period, comparison groups, metrics, thresholds, and audit access apply to the first benefit? | The project must distinguish a genuine additional benefit from engineered degradation of ordinary service. | Pre-pilot baseline study and benefit review. |
| OQ-316 | Which specific low-risk benefit is valuable enough to test but modest enough to remain voluntary and reversible? | A trivial benefit cannot test consumer value, while a material benefit can create coercion and legal risk. | Co-design with consumers, workers, partner operations, and counsel. |
| OQ-317 | Does the one-score lead interface outperform two-dimensional, tier, and proof-only controls on comprehension, emotional response, perceived fairness, gaming resistance, explanation, and consent? | Review Gate 1 sets the product direction, but presentation can still change the score's perceived moral judgment and practical meaning. | Prototype study with predefined comprehension, accessibility, trust, and harm thresholds. |
| OQ-318 | Which candidate models advance from synthetic simulation into real-event shadow analysis? | Model complexity should be earned through incremental performance, not adopted for sophistication. | Simulation report and independent data-science review. |
| OQ-319 | What architecture, wallet, issuer, verifier, status, storage, and identity choices are minimal for the pilot while preserving migration and rights? | A simple pilot implementation must not create vendor lock-in or violate the long-term trust boundaries. | Stage 2 proof of concept and threat review. |
| OQ-320 | Which independent evaluator will control or reproduce the analysis, and what access can it receive without creating another sensitive dataset? | Partner- or founder-only evaluation would weaken credibility; unrestricted research access would increase privacy risk. | Evaluation and controlled-access agreement. |
| OQ-321 | What normal and stress-case support, explanation, challenge, appeal, incident, and remedy volumes must be staffed before each Stage 3 release? | The pilot cannot exceed the capacity needed to protect real participants. | Simulation, tabletop, service design, and funded staffing plan. |
| OQ-322 | Who provides first-line review and independent appeal during the pilot, how are conflicts separated, and how are reviewers supported? | Independence must be operational before the first consequential result, not promised for later scale. | Interim governance and appeals contract. |
| OQ-323 | What numerical and qualitative thresholds trigger automatic pause, manual review, rollback, or pilot termination? | Stop conditions need actionable triggers without pretending every serious harm can be reduced to one metric. | Pre-registered risk and decision plan. |
| OQ-324 | At what release and confidence level may a company-specific proof begin, and what evidence is sufficient to justify an industry-portable proof? | Proof action should follow successful record and review validation rather than partner schedule. | Stage 3 gate reviews. |
| OQ-325 | What proof policy lets a second business recognize industry conduct without learning the contributing company, raw dimensions, or history? | The defining portability test must not become competitor disclosure or cross-company tracking. | Credential prototype, privacy test, and competition review. |
| OQ-326 | Which aggregate results, subgroup outcomes, incidents, corrections, and limitations can be published without reidentifying consumers or workers? | Honest reporting and small-group privacy can conflict in a narrow pilot. | Publication and statistical-disclosure protocol. |
| OQ-327 | What Stage 2 and Stage 3 budget covers technology, research, participant compensation, partner integration, counsel, security, accessibility, appeal, insurance, audit, and remedy? | Underfunded safeguards would convert founder or participant labor into hidden pilot subsidy. | Operating model and partner-funding plan. |
| OQ-328 | What exact evidence package authorizes the Stage 2-to-Stage 3 transition? | Governance, legal, technical, human, partner, benefit, and operating readiness must be assessed together. | Independent readiness review against Section 15.22. |
| OQ-329 | Which results justify stopping, repeating, redesigning, or advancing each release? | Mixed evidence should not be forced into a binary success narrative. | Predefined decision matrix and independent review. |
| OQ-330 | What evidence and institutional capacity are required to leave pilot status and enter production? | Scale adds incentives, jurisdictions, vendors, support volume, and function-creep risk that a bounded pilot does not prove. | Stage 4 readiness standard. |
| OQ-331 | Which people and teams inside Uber, Airbnb, Toast, Resy, Help Scout, NICE, and comparable platforms own ratings, trust, loyalty, partnerships, APIs, frontline workflow, worker experience, and responsible innovation? | The idea crosses several functions and can die if it enters through an owner without authority or incentive. | Stage 0 relationship mapping and warm-introduction strategy. |
| OQ-332 | Which candidate platforms permit the event, application, webhook, account-linking, loyalty, and user-interface access the pilot would need? | Public product capabilities do not establish actual partner permissions or willingness to expose them. | Confidential technical discovery and terms review. |
| OQ-333 | What concrete business problem would motivate each target to sponsor a CQ pilot now? | Worker safety, customer loyalty, host confidence, support quality, partner rewards, and differentiation create different internal buyers and budgets. | Target-specific discovery interviews and value hypotheses. |
| OQ-334 | Which candidate can supply at least two operationally independent businesses without making the platform the sole issuer, verifier, and standard setter? | Platform distribution is valuable, but portability and governance require independence in substance. | Ownership, client-contract, data-flow, and decision-right analysis. |
| OQ-335 | Can existing platform ratings or notes be excluded from CQ while a new governed NCS and VCI workflow is tested? | Importing legacy data would introduce incompatible prompts, purposes, evidence, consent, bias, and punitive history. | Architecture and policy discovery with each candidate. |
| OQ-336 | Which restaurant or hospitality platform has the best combination of customer identification, staff workflow, API access, operating-business interest, and low-risk benefit capability? | Toast, Resy, property systems, and other platforms expose different parts of the required loop. | Comparative platform-readiness matrix. |
| OQ-337 | Which support interactions, if any, are eligible for NCS after excluding complaints, accommodations, legal rights, business-caused incidents, and other protected or biased contexts? | A horizontal support pilot could otherwise reward customers for silence and punish legitimate advocacy. | Synthetic scenarios, worker and consumer research, and legal review. |
| OQ-338 | What VCI schema can represent support-case cause, consumer responsibility, business responsibility, resolution, reversal, and unresolved fault without importing sentiment or handle-time proxies? | Support context requires a rational counterweight strong enough to prevent subjective frustration from becoming adverse conduct. | Support-platform Stage 2 lab. |
| OQ-339 | Which low-risk benefit can a support-platform coalition deliver across two clients without affecting complaint priority, service levels, refunds, or legal rights? | The support platform controls workflow but may not control a consumer-facing loyalty benefit. | Partner and client benefit-design workshop. |
| OQ-340 | What information can be discussed confidentially with lighthouse targets, and what must become public before they are described as partners? | Early discovery needs candor, while public legitimacy requires accurate relationship and conflict disclosure. | Partner-communication and transparency policy. |
| OQ-341 | What outreach sequence balances warm introductions, public thought leadership, direct executive contact, product-team engagement, and smaller executable partners? | A major-company-only strategy may stall, while a purely bottom-up pilot may miss the distribution partner required for portability. | Stage 0 partnership strategy. |
| OQ-342 | What common readiness scorecard allows restaurant, mobility, lodging, marketplace, and support platforms to compete for one first-pilot slot? | Multiple arrows create optionality only if candidates are assessed under the same rights and evidence standards. | Partner-readiness framework derived from Sections 12–15. |
| OQ-343 | What are the canonical logical resources, commands, events, and state machines across interaction, NCS, VCI, synthesis, proof, benefit, and review? | Stable domain contracts must precede API path and vendor decisions. | Stage 2 domain-model workshop and schema prototypes. |
| OQ-344 | Which exact OpenAPI, JSON Schema, CloudEvents, credential, and cryptographic versions form the first conformance profile? | “Use open standards” is not interoperable until precise compatible versions are selected and tested. | Architecture proof and interoperability testing. |
| OQ-345 | Which source fields and operational semantics from each candidate platform can satisfy an approved VCI mapping? | Reservation, order, trip, stay, and support states often look similar while meaning different things. | Platform-specific source-mapping manifests. |
| OQ-346 | What complete actor and role taxonomy covers account holder, payer, booker, participant, worker, contractor, delegate, human agent, AI agent, and automation? | Correct attribution and the human-only NCS rule depend on unambiguous roles. | Identity, event-schema, and platform workshops. |
| OQ-347 | How will an integration prove that an NCS response came from an eligible human rather than AI, automation, shared credentials, or a manager? | A UI tap is not sufficient if the actor and workflow can be spoofed or delegated. | NCS assurance profile and adversarial testing. |
| OQ-348 | Which embedded-app, native-app, webhook, API, enterprise-adapter, batch, and account-linking patterns will the first platform support? | Each pattern changes data access, user experience, operational burden, and security boundaries. | Candidate-platform architecture. |
| OQ-349 | What issuer, processor, controller, employer, verifier, and benefit obligations belong to the platform versus each client business? | Multi-tenant platforms cannot absorb or disclaim all client responsibilities through one generic agreement. | Role mapping, contracts, and legal analysis. |
| OQ-350 | What tenant, location, franchise, brand, parent, platform, and corporate-family identifiers are required without enabling consumer correlation? | Independence and concentration controls require organization mapping while privacy requires narrow consumer identifiers. | Identifier and trust-registry design. |
| OQ-351 | What service-authorization profile, scopes, client authentication, token lifetimes, and key protections apply to each integration role? | Different functions create different blast radii and should not share broad credentials. | Security architecture aligned with current OAuth guidance. |
| OQ-352 | What webhook signature, destination registration, replay window, retry, backoff, quarantine, and secret-rotation rules are required? | Platform webhook implementations vary, and weak callbacks create forgery, replay, and data-exposure risk. | Transport conformance profile. |
| OQ-353 | What event identifiers, idempotency keys, causal references, ordering rules, and reconciliation process prevent duplicate or stale conduct effect? | At-least-once and out-of-order delivery are normal distributed-system behavior. | Event lifecycle prototype and failure testing. |
| OQ-354 | What timestamp fields, clock tolerance, timezone, finalization delay, and source-of-time rules apply to each context? | Interaction occurrence, recording, finalization, issuance, and delivery can differ materially. | Schema and context-profile design. |
| OQ-355 | Which raw source references remain local, and what evidence package can an authorized reviewer request without transferring the enterprise record by default? | Review needs substantiation while the architecture promises minimized data exchange. | Evidence-access and review protocol. |
| OQ-356 | Can any historical VCI fact qualify for migration, and what notice, matching, correction, time limit, and exclusion rules would apply? | Prospective launch is safest, but limited history may be needed to test confidence and portability. | Separate migration impact assessment; no NCS backfill. |
| OQ-357 | What consumer and worker interface elements must remain standardized inside a platform's native visual design? | Branding flexibility cannot obscure consent, rights, status, benefit, or challenge meaning. | Design system and comprehension testing. |
| OQ-358 | How will the platform prevent native ratings, notes, sentiment, customer segments, and existing CQ from influencing prompt eligibility or a worker's NCS response? | Data isolation must be functional, not only a written prohibition. | Architecture, UI, permissions, and audit testing. |
| OQ-359 | What exact minimal proof response and error taxonomy prevents a verifier from distinguishing insufficient history, dispute, expiry, context mismatch, or consumer refusal? | Technical error detail can leak the private explanation that policy intends to withhold. | Proof and verifier UX design. |
| OQ-360 | What benefit-fulfillment states, receipts, replacement rules, and baseline references integrate cleanly with loyalty, POS, reservation, marketplace, and CRM systems? | Proof success is useless if benefits are inconsistently delivered or baseline entitlements are relabeled. | Benefit adapter and operations testing. |
| OQ-361 | How does the unified challenge route across platform, client business, issuer, synthesis, wallet, verifier, and independent appeal without exposing unrelated data? | Routing must be simple for consumers but highly controlled behind the scenes. | Review orchestration prototype. |
| OQ-362 | What production data may appear in logs, traces, support tools, security monitoring, and debugging captures? | Observability can silently recreate the raw-data pool the architecture is designed to avoid. | Logging and diagnostic-data standard. |
| OQ-363 | What aggregate analytics may platforms and client businesses receive, and what privacy thresholds prevent worker or consumer reidentification? | Enterprise teams need operational feedback without cross-tenant profiling or employee surveillance. | Analytics, fairness, and statistical-disclosure policy. |
| OQ-364 | Who operates the public sandbox, conformance harness, mock services, certification environment, and compatibility registry? | Vendor-neutral tooling requires durable ownership and support before platforms can depend on it. | Stage 2 operating model and budget. |
| OQ-365 | What functional, negative, privacy, security, accessibility, fairness, load, outage, and exit tests are mandatory for each profile? | Happy-path API compliance does not demonstrate safe enterprise operation. | Certification test-suite design. |
| OQ-366 | What availability, latency, throughput, recovery, retry, reconciliation, and notification objectives apply to each workflow? | NCS, VCI, proof, benefit, correction, and audit functions have different urgency and safe failure. | Pilot capacity model and service-level design. |
| OQ-367 | What versioning, compatibility, deprecation, migration, and emergency-disable rules allow platforms to upgrade without breaking rights or proofs? | Long-lived multi-party integrations cannot change in lockstep. | Standards lifecycle and compatibility testing. |
| OQ-368 | What data-residency, cross-border routing, regional key, and regional-processing profiles apply to the first jurisdiction? | Platform infrastructure and consumer location may span regions even in a narrow pilot. | Legal and architecture review. |
| OQ-369 | What export format and migration process preserve valid consumer history if a platform, wallet, issuer, or synthesis provider exits? | Interoperability is incomplete if continuity works only while the original vendor participates. | Provider-exit prototype and tabletop. |
| OQ-370 | Which enterprise roles need certification, renewal, continuous monitoring, or event-triggered reassessment? | Risk and change rates differ across interaction sources, issuers, wallets, verifiers, and benefit systems. | Certification operating model. |
| OQ-371 | Should Stage 0 accept any financial support, and if so through what bounded gift, sponsorship, grant, or service terms? | Even small funding can create disclosure, tax, deliverable, and supporter-expectation obligations. | Stage 0 operating and legal plan. |
| OQ-372 | When is a fiscal sponsor, hosted project, Massachusetts entity, or other legal structure the best financial home? | Banking, tax, contracts, insurance, employment, grants, liability, and future transfer depend on the structure. | Counsel, accountant, funding, and partner assessment. |
| OQ-373 | What founder time, expenses, project assets, and in-kind contributions should be recorded from Stage 0 onward? | The true investment and future compensation or transfer cannot be evaluated without a reliable ledger. | Founder contribution and asset inventory. |
| OQ-374 | What founder role, compensation, expense reimbursement, term, succession, and conflict process applies at each funded stage? | Fair compensation must not become either permanent unpaid labor or permanent unilateral control. | Stage 2 organization and compensation review. |
| OQ-375 | What license or transfer terms move the specification, domains, marks, code, research, and related assets into a future OCA? | The public-interest institution needs durable access while respecting founder and contributor rights. | IP, tax, nonprofit, and governance advice. |
| OQ-376 | What complete Stage 2 budget funds platform discovery, simulation, prototype, governance, counsel, research, accessibility, security, and responsible stop? | Pre-pilot work can fail if funding covers software but not rights and evaluation. | Bottom-up work plan and cost model. |
| OQ-377 | What complete Stage 3 common budget and participant-specific budgets fund operation, benefit, rights, remedy, reporting, and wind-down? | No live pilot should launch on a partial technology budget. | Pilot coalition financial model. |
| OQ-378 | How long must the Stage 3 funding tail remain after the final live interaction? | Appeals, incidents, corrections, reporting, credentials, and data disposition continue after collection stops. | Pilot duration, legal limitation, and case-volume model. |
| OQ-379 | Which partner costs are direct obligations, which enter the pooled common budget, and which are shared by size, role, or volume? | Cost allocation can create hidden subsidies and sponsor control if it is not explicit. | Pilot coalition negotiation and independent review. |
| OQ-380 | Which membership classes, eligibility rules, dues, benefits, and participation rights fit the mature OCA? | Membership must fund common work without equating payment with governing power. | Governance and financial modeling. |
| OQ-381 | How should organization size, revenue, type, region, and ability to pay affect dues? | One global flat fee would either exclude small participants or undercharge dominant companies. | Comparative standards-body research and simulations. |
| OQ-382 | Which governance rights attach to stakeholder status rather than paid membership? | Consumers and workers need power even when they are not major financial contributors. | Charter and membership design. |
| OQ-383 | What certification, deployment, profile, renewal, retest, and mark fees recover actual assurance cost? | Underpricing makes certification dependent on subsidy; overpricing protects incumbents. | Certification activity-based cost model. |
| OQ-384 | Which open-source, nonprofit, small-business, startup, research, public-sector, and regional participants qualify for waivers or subsidies? | Access support needs transparent criteria and sustainable funding. | Subsidy policy and budget. |
| OQ-385 | Should member certification discounts exist, and how large can they be without making membership functionally mandatory? | Bundling dues and certification can support adoption but distort open access. | Pricing and competition review. |
| OQ-386 | Which operator fees should use tenant, deployment, active-account, event, credential, proof, capacity, or volume-band pricing? | Each unit creates different incentives and cross-subsidies. | Unit-economic simulation. |
| OQ-387 | What pricing prevents proof-volume fees from encouraging constant CQ queries? | A low marginal price can still create surveillance and unnecessary verification. | Proof-policy limits plus pricing design. |
| OQ-388 | What funder and sector concentration limits apply at Stage 2, pilot, and production? | Early single-sponsor reality and mature independence require different tolerances. | Financial stress testing and governance review. |
| OQ-389 | What unrestricted reserve, operating runway, rights reserve, and wind-down reserve are required by stage? | One general cash figure cannot show whether appeals or remedies remain protected. | Cash-flow, stress, and tail-risk modeling. |
| OQ-390 | Which insurance policies, limits, deductibles, exclusions, and participant indemnities are appropriate? | Privacy, cyber, professional, governance, labor, benefit, and research risks may sit with different parties. | Broker, counsel, and risk assessment. |
| OQ-391 | What remedy reserve, performance guarantee, or shared catastrophic mechanism is proportionate to the first pilot? | Consumers and workers need a solvent response without making OCA insurer of every interaction. | Scenario and severity modeling. |
| OQ-392 | How are appeal providers selected, assigned, paid, supported, and protected from sponsor or volume pressure? | Independence fails if reviewers depend economically on the party whose decisions they review. | Appeals operating and funding model. |
| OQ-393 | How are auditors and certification reviewers selected, rotated, paid, and evaluated without opinion shopping? | Participant-funded assurance needs institutional separation. | Accreditation and assurance-office design. |
| OQ-394 | Which services should OCA operate during the pilot, and which should be contracted or competitively certified from the start? | Early consolidation may reduce cost but increases conflicts and transition risk. | Role-by-role market and architecture assessment. |
| OQ-395 | What separation, accounting, staffing, data, and exit plan applies to any OCA-operated technical service? | Temporary vertical integration must not become invisible permanent control. | Pilot operating charter. |
| OQ-396 | Is any optional premium consumer wallet or concierge service compatible with the free-path and equal-rights rules? | Even convenience pricing can create a two-tier system or deceptive score-repair market. | Consumer-protection and business-model review. |
| OQ-397 | How are worker prompt, training, review, safety, and research time recorded and compensated across employees, contractors, hosts, and gig workers? | Work status and power vary across platform contexts. | Labor, platform, and partner agreements. |
| OQ-398 | What compensation and expense policy applies to consumers, workers, advocates, advisers, researchers, and governance participants? | Participation must be meaningful without creating coercive incentives or endorsement expectations. | Ethics, governance, and budget design. |
| OQ-399 | Which fixed, variable, episodic, tail, and contingency costs drive each stage and certified role? | Pricing cannot be designed before the complete cost structure is visible. | Activity-based cost model. |
| OQ-400 | What cost units best forecast platform, issuer, synthesis, proof, support, appeal, incident, and remedy capacity? | Average cost per consumer can hide rare but expensive rights and incident work. | Simulation and pilot operations. |
| OQ-401 | Which business-value hypotheses justify partner investment, and how will value be distributed among platform, business, worker, consumer, and OCA? | One actor may capture revenue while others bear emotional, operational, or rights costs. | Pilot measurement and value-allocation analysis. |
| OQ-402 | What evidence is required before making retention, loyalty, worker, cost, revenue, or interaction-quality claims? | Commercial fundraising and public trust depend on substantiated benefits. | Section 18 claim thresholds and legal review. |
| OQ-403 | Which subscription, tier, pooled assessment, committed-capacity, volume-band, and hybrid price structures should be simulated? | No one price unit aligns fixed common costs, variable operations, access, and anti-surveillance incentives. | Economic simulation. |
| OQ-404 | What public financial disclosures show funders, allocation, concentration, reserves, rights capacity, and related-party activity without inappropriate personal detail? | Financial legitimacy requires transparency calibrated to privacy and competitive sensitivity. | Financial transparency policy. |
| OQ-405 | What tax, accounting, cross-border, sales-tax, charitable, grant, and transfer-pricing obligations apply to the chosen model? | Membership, certification, software, marks, grants, and international services may receive different treatment. | Specialist tax and accounting advice. |
| OQ-406 | Which staff and contractor roles, compensation bands, benefits, and geographic assumptions define the Stage 2 and Stage 3 staffing model? | Labor is likely the largest cost and hidden founder multitasking is unsafe. | Operating design and compensation benchmarking. |
| OQ-407 | Which procurement thresholds, bid processes, conflict rules, and sole-source exceptions apply by stage? | Vendor dependence and related-party spending can shape both cost and standard design. | Procurement policy. |
| OQ-408 | What financial and operational terms let the ecosystem replace a critical platform, wallet, issuer, or service provider? | Technical export is insufficient without funded transition rights, staff, and time. | Vendor contract and exit tabletop. |
| OQ-409 | What antitrust review applies to dues, pooled pilot funding, shared services, certification fees, operator accreditation, and benefit funding? | Common infrastructure economics must not coordinate participant prices or exclude competitors. | Competition counsel. |
| OQ-410 | How will fines, settlements, recovered funds, and unclaimed remedies be allocated? | Enforcement funding can create distorted incentives or leave affected people without benefit. | Enforcement and remedy policy. |
| OQ-411 | What financial results authorize repetition, expansion, redesign, pause, or wind-down? | Adoption may coexist with unsustainable cost, rights underfunding, or sponsor dependence. | Stage-gate decision matrix and Section 18 metrics. |
| OQ-412 | What production revenue mix and reserve level can survive the loss of the largest funder, platform, and operator? | Mature infrastructure must withstand plausible simultaneous shocks. | Multi-year stress test. |
| OQ-413 | Should OCA provide paid implementation consulting, license accredited trainers, or limit itself to public guidance and independent third-party services? | Education can fund adoption, but consulting by the certifier creates conflicts and incentives for complexity. | Operating-model and conflict review. |
| OQ-414 | What exact first-pilot hypotheses and release questions belong in the evaluation charter? | The full concept contains more questions than one bounded pilot can answer credibly. | Candidate-context and coalition design. |
| OQ-415 | Which conditions are hard gates, review gates, and learning targets for each Stage 3 release? | Misclassifying an optimization target as a safety gate—or the reverse—can produce arbitrary or unsafe decisions. | Independent evaluation and standards review. |
| OQ-416 | What exact thresholds require containment, pause, rollback, redesign, repetition, or advancement? | Thresholds must reflect context, severity, detection, uncertainty, and operational capacity rather than being chosen after results. | Simulation, baseline data, legal review, and pilot charter. |
| OQ-417 | What sample size, duration, precision, power, clustering, repeated-event, and issuer-concentration assumptions apply to the first pilot? | Person-level, interaction-level, worker-level, and business-level conclusions require different designs. | Statistical analysis plan. |
| OQ-418 | Which baseline and comparison design can estimate additional value and parity without assigning inferior service or misleading participants? | Causal evidence is useful, but experimentation cannot manufacture harm or violate informed participation. | Research, legal, ethics, and partner design. |
| OQ-419 | What complete metric dictionary defines every numerator, denominator, exclusion, missing state, time window, and data source? | Similar-sounding rates can answer different questions and invite result shopping. | Evaluation charter and data model. |
| OQ-420 | Which independent adjudication samples can estimate NCS eligibility, attribution, VCI responsibility, lifecycle, and total error beyond challenged cases? | Challenges identify noticed errors but cannot estimate errors people never see or contest. | Evidence-validation study. |
| OQ-421 | What NCS measures and thresholds demonstrate consistent prompt meaning, genuine human provenance, worker voluntariness, sampling integrity, acceptable burden, and managed bias? | A stable net score may still be scripted, selective, retaliatory, or culturally distorted. | NCS profile simulation, worker research, and shadow pilot. |
| OQ-422 | What VCI event-level accuracy, causation, control, exception, reversal, and responsibility performance is required? | Aggregate operational accuracy can conceal harmful errors in a consequential event class. | Context taxonomy and source validation. |
| OQ-423 | What model calibration, stability, responsiveness, confidence, contradiction, concentration, and context-transfer performance justifies each representation? | Mathematical fit alone does not establish human meaning or safe consequence. | Common simulation suite and shadow analysis. |
| OQ-424 | Which comprehension tasks establish that consumers and workers understand NCS, VCI, CQ, confidence, context, proof, baseline, and rights? | Stated clarity or satisfaction can coexist with material misunderstanding. | Representative usability and mental-model research. |
| OQ-425 | What quantitative and qualitative fairness plan is lawful, ethical, sufficiently powered, privacy-preserving, and capable of finding conformity and protected-activity harms? | Fairness cannot be assessed responsibly through one demographic parity number or an unjustified sensitive-data pool. | Civil-rights, disability, privacy, legal, and research review. |
| OQ-426 | Which baseline-service outcomes and adverse-tail measures apply in the chosen industry? | Average parity can conceal severe delay, denial, stigma, or friction for a smaller group. | Industry operations and consumer research. |
| OQ-427 | What evidence distinguishes genuinely voluntary nonuse from mistrust, inaccessibility, fear, coercion, or lack of value? | Refusal and abandonment are ambiguous and must not automatically become conversion problems. | Interviews, behavioral research, and baseline analysis. |
| OQ-428 | What challenge, appeal, collective-correction, and remedy measures indicate accessible rights rather than suppressed demand or operational failure? | Both high and low case volume can be misinterpreted without awareness, outcome, burden, and detection evidence. | Rights-process prototype and capacity model. |
| OQ-429 | What benefit value and fulfillment thresholds show meaningful recognition without coercion, stigma, gaming, or baseline relabeling? | A benefit can be too trivial to test the thesis or too valuable to preserve genuine choice. | Benefit research, legal review, and pilot costing. |
| OQ-430 | Which business outcomes can be evaluated without allowing spend, loyalty, profitability, complaint avoidance, or low cost-to-serve to become conduct inputs? | Business value research can silently redefine good conduct around commercial convenience. | Causal design and data-separation review. |
| OQ-431 | How should value and cost be allocated across consumer, worker, business, platform, Open Conduct, and public-interest functions? | Positive total value can conceal that one group bears the emotional, labor, or rights cost while another captures the benefit. | Distributional and economic analysis. |
| OQ-432 | What operational, security, privacy, accessibility, recovery, and exit objectives apply to each workflow based on human consequence? | Average platform uptime does not describe a time-sensitive benefit, urgent correction, or identity-recovery failure. | Service-level and risk analysis. |
| OQ-433 | What founder-dependency, rights-capacity, funding-concentration, reserve, staffing, and operator-exit thresholds define institutional readiness? | A successful pilot can still be unscalable or unsafe to continue. | Stage 2 budget, stress test, and governance review. |
| OQ-434 | Who will independently evaluate the first pilot, what access will they receive, and what protects unfavorable publication? | Partner or OCA analytics alone cannot provide credible independent validation. | Evaluator charter and procurement. |
| OQ-435 | Which parts of the evaluation charter should be publicly preregistered, and what must remain protected for privacy or security? | Transparency improves credibility, but overdisclosure can expose people, systems, and anti-abuse controls. | Research and security publication plan. |
| OQ-436 | What anti-gaming audits detect prompt selection, case exclusion, delayed reversals, baseline staging, benefit relabeling, cost shifting, and selective reporting? | Metrics create incentives to improve appearances rather than underlying outcomes. | Threat modeling and independent sampling. |
| OQ-437 | What evidence level authorizes each public, fundraising, partner, certification, and marketing claim? | A claims ladder is only effective when specific language and approval responsibilities are defined. | Claim substantiation and review policy. |
| OQ-438 | What longitudinal monitoring and recertification cadence can detect performance drift, incentive change, normalized workarounds, and delayed harm? | A launch evaluation cannot establish permanent safety or value. | Stage 4 monitoring design. |
| OQ-439 | What independent-adoption evidence would justify expanding netconductscore.org from a redirect into a fuller NCS site? | A dedicated surface may become useful, but premature separation would fragment the standard family and operating burden. | NCS traffic, implementation, contribution, and community evidence. |
| OQ-440 | Which category phrase best balances immediate comprehension, distinctiveness, search behavior, and protection against punitive interpretation? | Recognition for conduct, portable earned trust, and conduct-based loyalty each emphasize a different part of the idea. | Audience, search, naming, and legal research. |
| OQ-441 | What one-sentence and thirty-second explanations do consumers, workers, businesses, and critics understand accurately after one exposure? | Internal clarity does not establish public comprehension. | Message testing with scenario-based recall. |
| OQ-442 | Which words—nice, good customer, good people, trust, score, reward, reputation, loyalty, and friction—create material misconceptions for which audiences? | Familiar language improves entry but can imply moral ranking, conformity, punishment, or guaranteed behavior. | Qualitative and quantitative language research. |
| OQ-443 | Should Return on Nice become an enduring campaign, periodic content frame, launch idea, or remain the original newsletter thesis? | Repetition could build recognition or narrow the system around a word the specification does not formally measure. | Brand and campaign strategy. |
| OQ-444 | Does Nice Should Pay work as a lasting rallying line without implying a cash reward, entitlement, or moral score? | The line is memorable but stronger than the pilot's bounded benefit claim. | Consumer, legal, and brand review. |
| OQ-445 | What permanent relationship should exist among the names Conduct, Conduct Quotient, Open Conduct, Net Conduct Score, Verified Conduct Index, and Open Conduct Alliance? | The logic is coherent internally, but public audiences may experience too many names. | Brand architecture and navigation testing. |
| OQ-446 | When may public materials describe the Open Conduct Alliance as an active institution rather than a proposed future governing body? | Premature institutional language could misrepresent legal existence, membership, authority, and independence. | Entity formation and governance readiness. |
| OQ-447 | Which additive benefit examples are compelling enough to explain return on nice while remaining low-risk, noncoercive, and operationally credible? | Earlier examples such as waived deposits, priority help, and upgrades may imply stakes beyond the first approved benefit class. | Benefit research and site-copy testing. |
| OQ-448 | Is the Delta-to-United example the strongest public portability story after disclosure, competition, and benefit limits are explained? | It is intuitive and memorable but can suggest competitor-history sharing or current partnerships. | Audience testing and airline legal review. |
| OQ-449 | What present-day example can complement the airline story with a simpler, more executable restaurant or hospitality path? | The public narrative should connect the ambitious promise to a credible first pilot without creating two competing stories. | Section 20 story and pilot-partner discovery. |
| OQ-450 | How prominently should AI agents, robots, personhood, and brand identity appear on each surface? | These ideas make the future stakes vivid but can distract from the current consumer and worker problem. | Audience-specific narrative testing. |
| OQ-451 | What evidence and language can explain business value without drifting into profitability, spend, complaint suppression, employee replacement, or low cost-to-serve? | The enterprise case must be attractive without redefining conduct around business convenience. | Partner research and Section 18 claims thresholds. |
| OQ-452 | What explanation best helps workers see NCS as protected input rather than another performance-management or customer-conflict tool? | Worker legitimacy is essential, and employer context changes how even neutral language is heard. | Worker and labor-representative research. |
| OQ-453 | Which objection should appear first on conduct.is, and which belong in deeper Open Conduct material? | Leading with every risk can bury the idea; hiding them makes the proposal look naïve or deceptive. | Information architecture and audience testing. |
| OQ-454 | What legal and editorial review is required before using social-credit, reputation, fairness, privacy, compliant, secure, or open-standard claims? | Familiar shorthand can create technical and legal promises beyond the current evidence. | Claims substantiation process. |
| OQ-455 | What homepage and navigation language communicates that no live score, network, certification, partner program, or consumer enrollment exists yet? | A polished site can make a proposal look operational even when its verbs remain tentative. | Sections 20 and 21 design and comprehension testing. |
| OQ-456 | How should newsletter readers, consumers, workers, businesses, implementers, critics, and potential contributors be routed without turning the sites into audience-selector menus? | Progressive depth should feel like one coherent story rather than several disconnected landing pages. | Site architecture and prototype testing. |
| OQ-457 | What content is canonical on each surface, and how will reused explanations stay synchronized across versions? | Duplicated definitions can drift and create competing standards. | Content model and publishing workflow. |
| OQ-458 | What editorial, accessibility, legal, policy, technical, and evidence checks form the public-content approval workflow? | Clear writing alone cannot assure that a consequential claim is current, accessible, or supportable. | Publishing governance design. |
| OQ-459 | What multilingual and culturally specific testing is required before translating “nice,” “conduct,” “trust,” and the NCS prompt? | Literal translation may change the social expectations and biases encoded by the concepts. | Localization and cross-cultural research. |
| OQ-460 | Which measures, denominators, and joint decision rule operationalize the balanced interaction outcome without allowing a strong business result to offset consumer, worker, rights, or fulfillment failure? | The outcome must be usable in simulation and pilots while preserving its separately inspectable safeguards. | Evaluation charter, stakeholder research, causal design, and independent methodological review. |
| OQ-461 | Which technical and organizational access design lets workers authenticate through a business while preventing ordinary managers and workforce systems from seeing individual NCS activity? | Policy alone cannot prevent coercion when the employer controls identity, devices, scheduling, and work systems. | Architecture, labor review, privacy engineering, and worker research. |
| OQ-462 | Which missingness measures and thresholds determine when selective NCS completion invalidates an issuer, context, or proof? | Selection, delivery, nonresponse, and unable-to-assess abstention may vary systematically with people and outcomes. | Structural simulation, shadow data, and statistical analysis plan. |
| OQ-463 | Does requiring a structured category for both negative responses improve eligibility review and reduce impulsive ratings without suppressing legitimate worker judgments? | The additional action can improve evidence or create differential friction that changes the response distribution. | Randomized interface study and worker interviews. |
| OQ-464 | Which disclosure profiles provide consumers enough event detail for meaningful review without identifying a sole worker in rideshare, hospitality, restaurant, travel, and support contexts? | Transparency and worker safety can conflict at the event level even when names are withheld. | Threat modeling, usability testing, labor input, and appeal prototype. |
| OQ-465 | How should multiple worker responses from one interaction be pooled, capped, summarized, or sampled without creating false corroboration? | Shared incidents, discussion, management framing, and operational failure make within-event ratings correlated. | Clustered structural simulation and controlled scenarios. |
| OQ-466 | Which privacy-minimized flags and timestamps detect complaint retaliation, accommodation bias, and company-failure contamination without making protected activity a new scoring input? | Detection requires chronology, but detailed complaint data can create surveillance and secondary-use risk. | Event-taxonomy design, privacy review, worker and consumer research. |
| OQ-467 | Which capture window by interaction type best balances emotional immediacy, recall, workload, discussion, manager influence, and later-event contamination? | A universal 24-hour window is convenient but may not be valid across rides, flights, stays, meals, and support cases. | Randomized timing study and context-specific pilot analysis. |
| OQ-468 | Does the repeat-willingness prompt remain invariant across role, language, culture, tipping norm, labor model, service complexity, complaint, accommodation, and business outcome? | Published instructions cannot establish that people interpret or answer the construct comparably. | Multilingual vignette research, role-play, measurement-invariance analysis, and shadow pilot. |
| OQ-469 | What responsibility-registration and lifecycle-closure rates demonstrate that an issuer is not selectively creating, transmitting, or resolving VCI units? | Events missing before creation or stranded in convenient states can manufacture an apparently strong evidence profile. | Source reconciliation, independent sampling, structural simulation, and issuer conformance testing. |
| OQ-470 | Which reciprocal business, dependency, exception, accommodation, waiver, notice, cure, and reversal fields are mandatory for each adverse event class? | A universal payload may be excessive, but issuer discretion can recreate one-sided evidence. | Context-profile design with consumer, accessibility, legal, operational, and technical review. |
| OQ-471 | Which VCI facts may finalize automatically, and which require independent or qualifying external adjudication when disputed, severe, or non-machine-verifiable? | Finalization must scale without making the issuer claimant, custodian, and judge. | Event-class evidence matrix, due-process design, legal review, and appeal-capacity model. |
| OQ-472 | What constitutes effective accessible notice and reasonable cure for each VCI event class, channel, language, disability, and consumer circumstance? | Delivered electronic notice does not establish comprehension, access, or a fair opportunity to respond. | Consumer research, accessibility testing, legal review, and notice experiments. |
| OQ-473 | How should partial or uncertain causation be represented when consumer and non-consumer factors both contributed to an outcome? | A binary blame assignment or hidden confidence discount can overstate certainty and allocate unfair adverse effect. | Causal taxonomy, adjudication scenarios, and structural simulation. |
| OQ-474 | Can a small closed VCI responsibility taxonomy remain legitimate, consistent, and operationally feasible across even one candidate pilot context? | The repaired legitimacy test may demand more governance and exception handling than the initial value can support. | Profile prototype, stakeholder review, legal analysis, and partner workflow costing. |
| OQ-475 | Which VCI representation resists easy-event flooding, transaction-volume advantage, severity dilution, sparse history, and issuer policy differences? | The provisional fulfilled-over-finalized ratio can look precise while hiding incompatible evidence profiles. | Structural simulation of event ratio, opportunity-balanced, class-profile, reliability-model, and proof-only approaches. |
| OQ-476 | Does VCI add a valid conduct signal beyond transaction count, tenure, resource stability, digital observability, loyalty, fraud, and commercial risk data? | Operational facts are objective only in a narrow sense; their aggregation may reproduce existing business segmentation under a new name. | Construct research, matched analysis, causal design, and independent review. |
| OQ-477 | Which exact source-to-target mappings preserve NCS and VCI meaning across companies, roles, interaction functions, populations, jurisdictions, and time? | Same-industry membership does not establish relevance, and portability is the central hypothesis under test. | Predeclared mapping studies, incremental-validity analysis, fairness tests, comprehension research, and legal review. |
| OQ-478 | Which evidence properties are hard gates, separately reported quality states, and legitimately combinable uncertainty measures? | One confidence value can let volume compensate for invalidity, poor sampling, bad attribution, or incomplete evidence. | Statistical architecture, governance review, simulations, and consumer explanation testing. |
| OQ-479 | Does K3 capped arithmetic preserve contradiction and component meaning well enough in real use, and when must the product fall back to no score, its two-input explanation, or proof-only output? | Suite K resolved the structural lead but cannot establish human validity, fairness, operational meaning, or the right production cap. | Real-data replay, consumer and worker research, partner workflow testing, cap sensitivity, fairness analysis, and independent methodological review. |
| OQ-480 | What labels let consumers distinguish favorable, mixed, and adverse direction from insufficient, developing, low-quality, stale, concentrated, or inapplicable evidence? | “Strong” and “weak” otherwise blur behavior with how much the system knows. | Mental-model research, accessibility review, localization, and challenge testing. |
| OQ-481 | Which proof thresholds, hysteresis, refresh windows, pending rules, grandfathering, and version transitions prevent unstable benefit eligibility? | Small events, time decay, corrections, incidents, and model changes can create threshold cliffs unrelated to a meaningful conduct change. | Proof-policy simulation and benefit-lifecycle design. |
| OQ-482 | How much proof or benefit loss arises solely from inactivity, and does that pressure consumers to transact to maintain recognition? | Stable conduct value does not prevent a practical consumption treadmill when confidence expires. | Longitudinal simulation, consumer research, and benefit testing. |
| OQ-483 | Which proof requests avoid revealing a named competitor, number of sources, relationship history, or event volume while remaining useful to the verifier? | Contextual proof can still expose commercial relationships through inference. | Selective-disclosure architecture, competition and privacy review, and verifier usability testing. |
| OQ-484 | What study design separates pre-treatment validity of conduct evidence from the effects of proof presentation, preferential treatment, benefit delivery, and self-fulfilling expectations? | Predictive success after CQ changes the interaction may validate the intervention rather than the conduct construct. | Blind shadow study followed by preregistered causal benefit experiments. |
| OQ-485 | What protocol behavior lets all nonpresentation states follow the same baseline path without creating customer-linked negative fields while preserving enough privacy-protected reliability telemetry? | Operational debugging can recreate the shadow score if failed or declined exchanges remain linkable to treatment systems. | Privacy architecture, verifier integration prototype, data-lineage audit, and threat modeling. |
| OQ-486 | Is benefit-eligibility proof alone sufficient for the initial verifier experience, and what legitimate use—if any—would justify a later standalone proof family? | Additional proof types enable score fishing and relationship inference unless each is necessary for a governed action. | Verifier workflow research, privacy review, and prohibited-combination analysis. |
| OQ-487 | What maximum duration, renewal event, receipt, revocation path, and material-change trigger should govern recurring proof permission? | Persistent permission can become invisible background access even when technically revocable. | Consent usability research, legal review, and account-lifecycle testing. |
| OQ-488 | Which preregistered baseline period, comparison groups, outcome measures, adverse tails, resource controls, and independent authority are required for the first benefit? | A partner can manufacture parity through timing, definition, staffing, policy, or comparison selection. | Causal evaluation design and candidate-partner operational data. |
| OQ-489 | Which benefit taxonomy reliably measures scarcity, substitutability, queue effect, baseline relationship, third-party burden, value, reversibility, and rights impact? | “Separately funded” is not enough to classify whether an additional benefit disadvantages others. | Economic, operational, consumer, worker, legal, and fairness review. |
| OQ-490 | What request initiation, frequency cap, private-offer design, “do not ask here” control, and employee boundary make proof presentation voluntary in practice? | Repeated requests and in-person waiting can coerce disclosure without any formally unequal decline path. | Consumer and worker usability testing, field experiment, and monitoring design. |
| OQ-491 | Which permitted benefit receipt fields, retention periods, system boundaries, and lineage tests prevent CQ-derived features from entering customer, marketing, risk, loyalty, and workforce models? | Raw CQ is unnecessary when downstream systems can learn from proof attempts, eligibility, activation, use, and absence. | Enterprise data architecture, conformance tests, deletion audit, and privacy review. |
| OQ-492 | What first benefit is meaningful enough to test demand and portability while remaining low-stakes, reversible, nonessential, non-rights, and genuinely non-positional? | A trivial benefit cannot test the thesis; a valuable scarce benefit may make participation coercive or harm nonholders. | Benefit concept research, capacity and cost modeling, shadow-penalty simulation, and preregistered pilot test. |
| OQ-493 | Which concrete attribution, credential-integrity, manufactured-history, and duplicate-benefit harms justify identity continuity in the first pilot? | Reset resistance cannot be specified around preserving negative history in an upside-only system. | Threat modeling tied to the selected benefit and pilot workflow. |
| OQ-494 | What is the lowest identity, authentication, holder-binding, and recovery assurance that is proportionate to the first pilot benefit? | Overbuilt identity creates exclusion and breach harm larger than the optional value it protects. | Benefit-abuse analysis, accessibility testing, privacy impact assessment, and architecture comparison. |
| OQ-495 | Which complete data-flow and collusion tests reveal correlation through identifiers, issuer keys, timestamps, status checks, policy identifiers, devices, wallets, networks, and customer-account links? | Pairwise identifiers and selective disclosure do not guarantee unlinkability across the full ecosystem. | Privacy threat model, prototype instrumentation, and independent testing. |
| OQ-496 | Which custody architecture minimizes combined access across identity, events, synthesis, proof activity, and appeals when actual vendors, administrators, clouds, keys, and subpoenas are considered? | Logical separation can conceal one real operator or administrative domain holding the dossier. | Architecture alternatives, breach modeling, governance analysis, and procurement constraints. |
| OQ-497 | What successful-proof receipt must a verifier retain, and what failed-exchange telemetry can be kept without allowing relinking to customer treatment? | Debugging and audit data can recreate the prohibited shadow category. | Data-minimization design, retention testing, lineage audit, and privacy review. |
| OQ-498 | Which recovery actions require identity reproofing, delay, support review, independent adjudication, or abandonment to baseline? | One recovery profile can be either insecure for valuable proofs or exclusionary for low-stakes optional credentials. | Recovery threat modeling, accessibility research, and benefit-specific assurance profiles. |
| OQ-499 | Under what legal and functional conditions may an assistant, caregiver, guardian, or other delegate authorize one CQ proof? | Convenience authority and legal care roles do not automatically establish valid conduct-disclosure authority. | Supported-decision research, guardianship and privacy review, and delegation prototype. |
| OQ-500 | What exact containment, pause, information, voting, objection, and escalation authority belongs to independent consumer- and worker-rights functions in Stage 3? | Representation can be ceremonial without power, but undefined vetoes can make a small pilot ungovernable. | Interim charter design, stakeholder negotiation, and governance stress test. |
| OQ-501 | Which pilot roles are absolutely incompatible, conditionally combinable, or safely shareable under disclosed controls? | Full institutional duplication is unaffordable, while unrestricted combination destroys independence. | Role-conflict matrix, operating design, legal review, and tabletop scenarios. |
| OQ-502 | What funded staffing, provider capacity, evidence access, service level, backup, and exercise demonstrates that each Stage 3 right is operational? | A named panel or channel does not establish that a real person can receive timely correction, safety, appeal, or remedy. | Capacity model, contracts, budget, accessibility test, and operational tabletop. |
| OQ-503 | Which pilot funds and data rights must be ring-fenced so a sponsor cannot disable appeals, evaluation, reporting, or wind-down by withdrawing? | Formal voting independence is weak when one partner controls the practical inputs and budget. | Pilot funding agreement, protected accounts, data contract, and sponsor-exit stress test. |
| OQ-504 | Which matters can OCA finally decide for CQ effect, and which must be referred while preserving external legal, labor, regulatory, ombuds, union, works-council, or court rights? | Overclaiming private authority creates false finality and conflict across jurisdictions. | Jurisdiction profiles and appeal-scope rules. |
| OQ-505 | What continuity package survives the simultaneous loss of the largest funder, platform, and operator? | Correction, appeal, incident response, export, benefit commitments, and final reporting cannot depend on sponsor goodwill after exit. | Funded tabletop, data export test, provider replacement plan, and wind-down exercise. |
| OQ-506 | Which Stage 0 conversations, letters, funding, data, prototypes, partner naming, and discovery activities trigger Stage 2 precommitment review? | Informal or nonbinding labels can hide material control, obligation, dependence, and public implication. | Founder operating policy and counsel review before the first material arrangement. |
| OQ-507 | Which public, member, commissioned, sponsored, industry, and standards-performance reports form the initial OCA intelligence portfolio? | Report revenue must create real public and business value without expanding data collection merely to create products. | Consumer, member, media, researcher, and public-interest discovery. |
| OQ-508 | Which federated-query, secure-aggregation, clean-room, controlled-environment, multiparty, or other architecture lets OCA produce unique reports without central raw-data custody? | The alliance needs a unique network lens while avoiding a centralized behavioral dossier and infrastructure-data-company identity. | Architecture comparison, threat model, prototype, and cost analysis. |
| OQ-509 | What data-contribution and analytical rights must certified participants grant OCA, and how are purpose, retention, audit, exit, and later use constrained? | Reports cannot be dependable if members selectively contribute favorable data or withdraw inconvenient history. | Participation agreement, data-governance profile, legal review, and source-completeness testing. |
| OQ-510 | Which findings are always public, which may support paid member depth, and what rule moves a confidential diagnostic into public reporting when it reveals material ecosystem harm? | Revenue and client confidentiality cannot suppress safety, fairness, rights, baseline, security, or governance evidence. | Publication policy, severity taxonomy, responsible-disclosure window, and independent escalation authority. |
| OQ-511 | What minimum cohort size, cell size, issuer count, dominance cap, rarity rule, time window, and privacy protection prevent reidentification or competitor inference? | An aggregate can still reveal one business, worker, location, incident, or consumer when the cohort is small or concentrated. | Statistical disclosure control, privacy testing, and competition review. |
| OQ-512 | Which Delta-like member questions are valuable and permissible when answered with the member's own data plus protected network benchmarks? | The commercial promise should reveal operational and relationship insights the member lacks without disclosing a competitor or person. | Executive interviews, diagnostic prototypes, metric design, and willingness-to-pay research. |
| OQ-513 | How should reports, memberships, subscriptions, commissioned analysis, sponsorships, briefings, and workshops be priced and bundled? | OCA needs recurring value without letting payment buy favorable analysis, raw data access, or standards influence. | Revenue modeling, member segmentation, cost analysis, and conflict review. |
| OQ-514 | Which report methodology, benchmark definitions, and aggregate outputs must be open for credibility, and which report expression, tooling, or analyst service may remain paid intellectual property? | Total secrecy destroys trust; total commoditization may weaken a legitimate recurring revenue engine. | IP policy, research norms, member testing, and mission review. |
| OQ-515 | What antitrust, privacy, consumer-reporting, labor, trade-secret, database-right, research, and cross-border restrictions apply to each report family? | Aggregate intelligence can still create regulated reports, sensitive exchanges, worker surveillance, or competitor coordination. | Current primary-source legal research and specialist counsel by jurisdiction. |
| OQ-516 | What audit proves that report revenue is not causing broader collection, selective metrics, favorable cohort construction, delayed harm disclosure, or conversion into an open-ended query business? | The revenue model can gradually reshape the standard and data architecture even while formal prohibitions remain. | Independent product-governance audit, query logs, report review, and financial-incentive monitoring. |
| OQ-517 | What organizational separation, staffing, client-intake, methods review, publication authority, and conflict rules should govern the Research and Intelligence Office? | Report authors need commercial awareness and data access without becoming controlled by membership sales, sponsors, clients, certification, or infrastructure operators. | Operating-model design, research-governance review, and pilot report workflow. |
| OQ-518 | Under the exact Stage 3 roles, communications, economic arrangements, proof flow, expected uses, and benefit, which parties are consumer reporting agencies, furnishers, users, resellers, or outside FCRA coverage? | Consumer control, authorization, nonprofit form, positive output, and consumer-initiated transactions do not decide classification. | Written specialist opinion against the production data-flow and contract model. |
| OQ-519 | Which, if any, source communications fit the transaction-or-experience exclusion, and how do synthesis, aggregation, credential issuance, and onward furnishing affect it? | A participating company's own experience report is not necessarily equivalent to an intermediary's cross-company conclusion. | Role-specific statutory and case-law analysis before architecture selection. |
| OQ-520 | Can any EEA context-transfer and benefit profile avoid prohibited social scoring under Article 5 of the EU AI Act? | The core portability proposition intentionally lets behavior evidence from one company affect treatment by another. | Source-target relation, proportionality, practical-treatment, AI-system, baseline, equality, and data-protection opinion. |
| OQ-521 | Which report and benchmarking inputs are competitively sensitive in each pilot market, and what minimum necessary aggregation, latency, access, and governance makes each approved question lawful? | Withdrawn numeric safety zones cannot substitute for market- and use-specific antitrust analysis. | U.S., EU, and local competition review using the actual member set, market structure, query, and output. |
| OQ-522 | Which repeated-query, overlap, subtraction, dominant-contributor, rarity, geography, and time attacks can infer a business, worker, incident, or consumer from OCA aggregates? | One minimum-cell rule cannot protect dynamic reports. | Statistical disclosure-control red team, query simulation, and independent privacy and competition testing. |
| OQ-523 | What lawful basis, purpose-compatibility analysis, role allocation, notice, rights, retention, transfer, and Article 89 safeguard applies to each federated report family? | Distributed custody does not remove the regulated processing performed across participants and OCA. | Data-protection impact assessment and report-specific legal profile. |
| OQ-524 | Which exact intelligence outputs and technical affordances keep member diagnostics institutional rather than person-level consumer reports, workforce monitoring, or behavioral audiences? | Rows, drill-down, account cuts, eligibility lists, lookalikes, and open-ended queries can defeat a report label. | Product charter, output schemas, technical denial tests, contracts, and audit. |
| OQ-525 | For the selected first benefit, which public-accommodations rules govern the benefit and qualification method, and what equivalent accessible path is both safe and genuinely valuable? | Additive privileges and eligibility criteria can still create unequal access or discriminatory effect. | Disability-rights, civil-rights, consumer, operational, and legal review with disabled participants. |
| OQ-526 | Which protected groups and intersections receive less opportunity to generate qualifying evidence, present proof, receive the benefit, or retain baseline parity? | Equal formal rules can reproduce unequal interaction frequency, digital access, accommodation need, language, and worker perception. | Preregistered opportunity, eligibility, receipt, refusal, failure, and outcome analysis. |
| OQ-527 | Which U.S. state-law profile is the narrowest feasible first pilot, and what entity thresholds, participant residency, worker location, data, use, and benefit assumptions define it? | Massachusetts founder location does not limit obligations when partners, consumers, workers, and data span states. | Dated counsel-reviewed jurisdiction matrix before recruitment. |
| OQ-528 | Which NCS activities are required work, how much compensated time and emotional load do they create, and what manager-visible metadata remains? | Capture, substantiation, review, investigation, and appeal can become unpaid labor and workforce monitoring even when response values are confidential. | Workflow timing, wage-and-hour analysis, access-control audit, worker research, and labor review. |
| OQ-529 | What union, works-council, consultation, collective-bargaining, worker-data, algorithmic-management, and cross-border requirements apply to each candidate workforce? | A digital-first platform can integrate quickly while lacking authority to impose a new worker observation system. | Workforce-model and jurisdiction-specific labor profile before partner commitment. |
| OQ-530 | Which Stage 0 words and claims accurately communicate the full ambition without implying an operating alliance, legal compliance, proven fairness, partner adoption, or score validity? | Overlawyering can bury the idea, while confident future tense can misrepresent the project's current state. | Editorial claims matrix, evidence file, and prepublication legal review only where a concrete claim warrants it. |
| OQ-531 | What material changes automatically reopen legal approval for a profile? | A new score factor, source context, target context, benefit, report cut, partner role, jurisdiction, or data recipient can change classification without changing the CQ brand. | Versioned legal-change taxonomy linked to product and standards change control. |
| OQ-532 | Which candidate platforms will accept every non-compensating readiness gate before commercial attractiveness is scored? | Scale and API maturity cannot compensate for failed rights, evidence, independence, legal, or exit requirements. | Structured discovery using a pass, fail, or unresolved gate dossier. |
| OQ-533 | What direct contractual and technical access lets the independent evaluator reconcile the complete eligible interaction population and receive required evidence without sponsor curation? | Missing, delayed, failed, reversed, disputed, and excluded events determine whether the pilot evidence is credible. | Data-rights schedule, source reconciliation prototype, and adversarial delivery test. |
| OQ-534 | What fixed review window and protected exceptions allow partner factual, privacy, security, legal, and trade-secret review without giving a publication veto? | Independence and responsible disclosure both fail if either side controls the boundary alone. | Evaluation publication policy, counsel review, and sponsor-exit scenario. |
| OQ-535 | Which legacy platform fields can influence sampling, prompts, model inputs, investigations, benefits, interfaces, or downstream treatment even when absent from the CQ API? | Ratings and risk systems can contaminate the experiment through selection and personalization rather than event payloads. | Full lineage map, feature inventory, access testing, and controlled counterfactual audit. |
| OQ-536 | What control, policy, data, benefit, ownership, and economic tests establish that two Release 3D businesses are substantively independent? | Two logos may represent one corporate family, loyalty system, platform policy, or customer-treatment engine. | Independence rubric and competition review. |
| OQ-537 | Which IP, exclusivity, press, branding, first-refusal, roadmap, data, and in-kind contribution terms create de facto partner capture? | Nominal open governance can be undermined contractually and operationally. | Model term sheet, IP schedule, governance review, and negotiation red team. |
| OQ-538 | For each platform model, who employs or engages the worker, controls the benefit, owns source facts, corrects events, holds customer permissions, and bears remedy duties? | Platforms, client businesses, franchisees, contractors, and corporate parents can hold different pieces of authority. | Role-and-responsibility map tied to contracts and technical permissions. |
| OQ-539 | Which report fields and periods are mandatory contributions, and what happens when a participant exits, disputes a method, asserts trade-secret protection, or seeks to remove an unfavorable period? | OCA needs dependable network insight without an unlimited data license or selective-history problem. | Purpose-specific participation and report agreement with independent dispute and harm-publication rules. |
| OQ-540 | What evidence would justify moving customer support from a Stage 2 laboratory into real-person NCS, proof, or portability? | The context is operationally attractive but structurally selected by company failure, complaints, disability, safety, and rights exercise. | Preregistered construct, causation, worker, rights, and baseline thresholds. |
| OQ-541 | Which first context can pass company-specific releases and still reach a credible independent portability test without replacing its identity, event, proof, benefit, and governance architecture? | A simple pilot may be safe but irrelevant; an ambitious pilot may be uninterpretable. | Candidate-context pathway design through Releases 3A–3D. |
| OQ-542 | What production-shaped exit exercise proves that correction, appeal, incident response, benefit completion, deletion, export, and final reporting survive platform withdrawal? | Contracts do not prove schemas, keys, funds, staff, evidence, and authority remain usable. | Prelaunch tabletop plus technical and operational export rehearsal. |
| OQ-543 | Which partner-provided funding, engineering, services, data, and benefits must be valued and concentration-tested as practical control? | In-kind dependence can be as controlling as cash and may be invisible in governance ratios. | Full contribution ledger, replacement-cost model, concentration thresholds, and sponsor-loss test. |
| OQ-544 | What public language accurately distinguishes a discovery contact, adviser, funder, technology provider, participating business, pilot partner, certified implementation, and OCA member? | Early partner naming can imply endorsement, adoption, independence, or validation that does not exist. | Partner-claims taxonomy, permission rules, and public communications review. |
| OQ-545 | What protocol, status-code, timing, callback, log, receipt, and UI design makes every non-Eligible proof state indistinguishable from baseline to the verifier? | Removing reason text is insufficient when system behavior preserves a customer-linked negative category. | End-to-end differential traffic, data-lineage, support-tool, CRM, and warehouse testing. |
| OQ-546 | What privacy-minimized source-population ledger proves complete interaction registration, sampling, prompting, response, issuance, rejection, delay, dispute, correction, and reversal? | A ledger must expose selective omission without creating new person-level conduct or worker-surveillance data. | Reconciliation architecture, privacy review, evaluator prototype, and adversarial omission simulation. |
| OQ-547 | Which legacy fields and derived features can indirectly alter recruitment, selection, prompt delivery, investigation, benefits, or downstream treatment? | A clean CQ payload can coexist with contaminated decision logic. | Enterprise-wide feature inventory, lineage tracing, access testing, and controlled counterfactuals. |
| OQ-548 | Which propagation targets, caches, credentials, permissions, proofs, reports, and notices define completed correction for each event and harm class? | Additive lifecycle events are not meaningful if downstream active effects remain stale. | Correction fan-out map, service-level design, failure injection, and consumer receipt test. |
| OQ-549 | When an inaccurate event wrongly prevented an otherwise approved benefit, what replacement, compensation, apology, or other remedy is proportionate and operationally feasible? | Non-clawback protects completed benefits, but consumers also need repair for lost positive opportunities. | Benefit-specific remedy design, legal review, costing, and pilot tabletop. |
| OQ-550 | Which actual administrative domains can access multiple tenants across platform support, parent companies, vendors, clouds, warehouses, backups, keys, incidents, and legal response? | Logical tenant boundaries may conceal shared privileged access and bulk export capability. | Privilege graph, architecture review, access exercise, and independent audit. |
| OQ-551 | Which evaluation architecture provides direct, reproducible evidence without central permanent identity-linked cross-company custody? | Independence, subgroup analysis, case validation, privacy, deletion, and reproducibility pull in different directions. | Compare controlled research environment, federated analysis, secure aggregation, bounded extracts, and split case/population designs. |
| OQ-552 | What technical boundary prevents OCA reports, members, evaluators, support staff, or administrators from turning person-level synthesis into a batch query or eligible audience? | Authorization combinations and repeated calls can bypass the formal report interface. | Abuse-case implementation, service-account review, query-rate testing, and privilege escalation red team. |
| OQ-553 | Which exact person and responsibility may receive NCS or VCI effect in group dining, shared rides, family stays, corporate travel, delegated support, and marketplace bookings? | Account identity does not prove observed conduct or control of the responsibility. | Context-specific actor map, consumer and worker research, and attribution simulation. |
| OQ-554 | What conformance journey proves that a completed event correction reaches every active representation and future proof while protecting worker identity and report integrity? | Correctness crosses issuer, synthesis, wallet, verifier, evaluator, report, and notice boundaries. | Production-shaped collective-correction exercise. |
| OQ-555 | Which logs and metrics are necessary for reliability, fairness, security, and evaluation, and how are they prevented from becoming customer or worker profiles? | Observability can defeat data minimization and nonpresentation privacy. | Telemetry purpose matrix, short-retention design, access test, and reidentification review. |
| OQ-556 | Which material changes require partial or complete enterprise recertification, and how quickly must affected functions pause? | Certification can become stale after ownership, role, schema, model, benefit, vendor, data-flow, or configuration change. | Change taxonomy, dependency graph, renewal rules, and emergency-pause test. |
| OQ-557 | What committed Stage 3 funding package closes the pilot with report revenue set to zero? | Reports require the network and cannot be assumed to finance its creation. | Bottom-up normal, stress, severe-but-plausible, sponsor-exit, and wind-down budget. |
| OQ-558 | Which sponsor promises, internal staff, credits, infrastructure, data, benefit inventory, insurance, and professional services are independently enforceable and replaceable? | Nominal funding may disappear when a sponsor changes priorities or dislikes a result. | Funding diligence, contracts, replacement-cost ledger, and withdrawal tabletop. |
| OQ-559 | What maximum consumers, interactions, prompts, events, proofs, benefits, ordinary cases, urgent cases, and incidents can the funded pilot safely support? | One volume cap cannot represent different workload and tail obligations. | Capacity model, queue simulation, provider commitments, and automatic-pause thresholds. |
| OQ-560 | Which combination of cash and in-kind dependencies makes one corporate family the practical controlling funder? | Engineering, hosting, data, worker access, benefits, distribution, and indemnity may matter more than cash dues. | Replacement-cost and control graph with simultaneous-loss scenarios. |
| OQ-561 | Which program ledgers and allocation method make rights, public goods, certification, services, and intelligence cross-subsidies visible without creating artificial internal profit centers? | OCA needs accountability for payer power and full cost, not finance theater. | Activity and obligation mapping, transparent allocation rules, and independent financial review. |
| OQ-562 | How should certification assessments separately fund initial review, renewal, surveillance, complaints, enforcement, and retesting? | A single applicant fee can underfund continuing oversight or reward quick passes. | Workload model, published schedule, reviewer assignment design, and failure scenarios. |
| OQ-563 | Which prospective scale and risk bands fairly fund pooled appeals, and when may participant-attributable remediation cost be recovered? | Flat pooling creates moral hazard; outcome-linked fees compromise review independence. | Appeal-volume simulation, defect attribution rules, independent review, and pricing test. |
| OQ-564 | Which OCA-operated services are actually necessary for a pilot, and what date and evidence trigger competition, structural separation, spinout, or retirement? | Temporary vertical integration can become permanent through revenue and operational convenience. | Service-by-service make/buy analysis, market test, separate ledger, and exit rehearsal. |
| OQ-565 | Which named harm, incident, discrimination, consumer-reporting, benefit, employment, breach, litigation, and wind-down scenarios are covered, excluded, delayed, or uninsured? | Policy names and aggregate limits do not establish actual remedy capacity. | Broker and counsel coverage map, insurer review, reserve model, and claims tabletop. |
| OQ-566 | What dependable base allocation funds public-interest reporting, accessibility, translation, consumer and worker participation, and small-implementer access? | These common goods may be essential and commercially underfunded. | Multi-year budget and diversified dues, assessment, grant, or unrestricted-fund model. |
| OQ-567 | Which pricing combination covers fixed and variable cost without encouraging proof volume, selective event issuance, consumer retention, or rights rationing? | Every plausible unit has behavioral effects. | Pricing simulation using normal, sparse, high-volume, high-challenge, and incident scenarios. |
| OQ-568 | What revenue, funder, client, sector, vendor, and in-kind concentration thresholds trigger disclosure, remediation, pause, or prohibition? | One universal percentage may be unrealistic early and too permissive later. | Stage-specific concentration simulation and governance stress test. |
| OQ-569 | What reserve amount and form covers benefit replacement, correction, appeal tail, incident response, notice, provider failure, and orderly wind-down after new revenue stops? | Runway is not the same as protected tail capacity. | Scenario-based liquidity model and legal protection design. |
| OQ-570 | What Stage 0 cadence, intake limits, response expectations, expense ceiling, and funded-work trigger keep the project sustainable for Brent? | The idea can create an accidental second job before it has institutional capacity. | Founder operating policy reviewed after actual demand emerges. |
| OQ-571 | What is the primary estimand for each release: invitation, enrollment, exposure, proof opportunity, presentation, benefit receipt, or another population effect? | Each answers a different question and post-selection results cannot be generalized automatically. | Evaluation-charter design tied to assignment and intended claim. |
| OQ-572 | Which complete denominator ladder and source reconciliation prevents partners from selecting favorable eligibility, prompt, proof, benefit, challenge, and follow-up populations? | Arithmetic accuracy does not prevent denominator manipulation. | Metric dictionary, source-population ledger, preregistration, and independent audit. |
| OQ-573 | Which protected groups and intersections require deliberate recruitment, matched scenario testing, qualitative evidence, or a narrower claim because the pilot cannot estimate disparity precisely? | Lack of power is uncertainty, not evidence of parity. | Precision planning with civil-rights, disability, worker, consumer, privacy, and statistical review. |
| OQ-574 | What are the assignment, observation, analysis, and inference units for consumers, workers, interactions, shifts, locations, businesses, platforms, incidents, and periods? | Wrong unit assumptions inflate evidence and obscure concentrated effects. | Dependency map, clustering simulation, and statistical analysis plan. |
| OQ-575 | Which missingness mechanisms are plausible at every recruitment, workflow, event, proof, benefit, rights, and follow-up stage? | Withdrawal, abstention, technical failure, pressure, harm, and access barriers may depend on the outcome. | Missingness map, auxiliary-data review, bounded and sensitivity analysis, and qualitative follow-up. |
| OQ-576 | Which primary outcomes, models, subgroups, time points, and interim looks require multiplicity or sequential-monitoring control? | The ecosystem creates many opportunities to stop or report on a favorable slice. | Preregistered analysis hierarchy and independent methods review. |
| OQ-577 | What follow-up duration is necessary for worker retaliation, challenge, correction, benefit, credential, privacy, incident, and wind-down claims? | Immediate workflow success cannot establish delayed safety or durability. | Risk-specific lifecycle map, funded tail, and censoring analysis. |
| OQ-578 | What detection sources and coverage can identify harm that never enters an ordinary complaint or challenge channel? | Zero counts are weak when people do not notice, trust, or safely use the system. | Independent outreach, audits, mystery shopping, case sampling, near-miss review, and protected channels. |
| OQ-579 | Which novelty, training, staffing, attention, expectation, and concurrent-policy effects could explain an apparent CQ benefit? | The pilot intervention includes more than conduct evidence and proof. | Shadow, staged, matched, blinded where possible, persistence, spillover, and implementation-fidelity analyses. |
| OQ-580 | Which optional interface, communication, timing, or additive-benefit variations may be tested without withholding a protected right or creating unlawful differential treatment? | Not every methodologically attractive randomization is ethically permissible. | Legal and ethics review linked to the benefit and baseline profile. |
| OQ-581 | What frozen analytical state and governed rerun access are sufficient to reproduce primary results without retaining or publishing unnecessary person-level data? | Reproducibility and minimization require an explicit architecture. | Controlled-environment design, code and query archive, aggregate validation, and independent rerun. |
| OQ-582 | What materially different replication is required before each workflow, construct, intervention, portability, or production claim generalizes? | Different claims need different evidence of robustness. | Claims ladder, external-validity analysis, and staged replication plan. |
| OQ-583 | Which preregistered result must lead a public report when an exploratory result is more favorable, newsworthy, or commercially useful? | Narrative selection can reverse the evidentiary meaning without falsifying a number. | Publication charter, evaluator authority, and report red team. |
| OQ-584 | What evidence supports separating a CQ effect from participant self-selection, worker and manager behavior change, extra staffing, novelty, and the benefit itself? | A positive outcome may validate implementation attention rather than the conduct construct. | Layered shadow, construct, proof, and benefit designs with causal and qualitative evidence. |
| OQ-585 | Which shortest public wording makes one contextual CQ feel simple while accurately explaining that two protected inputs independently qualify beneath it and that a business may receive only a limited proof? | Architecture honesty and editorial clarity pull in different directions, and the explanation must not recreate two competing headline scores. | Consumer comprehension and spoken-language testing. |
| OQ-586 | Does consumer-controlled earned recognition communicate the desired value better than portable earned trust, conduct-based loyalty, or another category phrase? | Trust may overgeneralize; recognition may feel weaker or less ownable. | Audience testing across consumers, workers, businesses, and critics. |
| OQ-587 | Which baseline sentence is both emotionally reassuring and unmistakably a requirement to prove rather than an existing result? | Proposal-stage confidence can easily outrun operational evidence. | Copy testing tied to the claims ladder. |
| OQ-588 | Can readers understand the Delta-to-United example while correctly explaining that United would not learn Delta was the source or receive Delta events? | The named journey and unnamed proof create a subtle distinction. | Comprehension tasks and alternative example wording. |
| OQ-589 | Which wording explains that VCI adds a separate operational lens without implying objective truth or mathematical removal of NCS bias? | “Balance” and “counterweight” can both be overread. | Editorial and mental-model research. |
| OQ-590 | How much safeguard detail belongs in the newsletter, conduct.is, openconduct.org, partner materials, and pilot notices? | Too little feels evasive; too much burdens the idea and can simulate proof through complexity. | Surface-by-surface progressive-disclosure testing. |
| OQ-591 | What three-horizon language best distinguishes the idea, first bounded test, and evidence-dependent future? | Readers need to feel the full ambition without mistaking it for a near-term roadmap. | Newsletter, homepage, and partner-deck prototype testing. |
| OQ-592 | Where should OCA intelligence and report value appear so businesses understand the opportunity without consumers inferring that conduct data is being sold? | The institutional revenue story is important but not the public opening. | Enterprise narrative, trust, and report-product concept testing. |
| OQ-593 | Which uses of Return on Nice, Nice Should Pay, good customer, earned trust, score, reward, and conduct create deference, moral-worth, or guaranteed-return misconceptions? | Memorable language can redefine the system in readers' minds. | Phrase-level comprehension, disability, cultural, worker, and critic review. |
| OQ-594 | What exact event permits public language to shift OCA from proposed future institution to active alliance, member body, certification authority, report provider, or operator? | Legal formation alone may not establish independence and capacity; informal activity can also make passive language misleading. | Stage and role activation criteria linked to charter, funding, staffing, contracts, and public registry. |
| OQ-595 | What exact versioned contents complete PSB-001 through PSB-008 and authorize the first structural simulation run? | Simulation preparation can drift into ad hoc coding unless the entry artifacts have explicit acceptance criteria. | Pre-simulation design review against the closure register. |
| OQ-596 | Which sustained audit findings require direct synthetic scenarios, which require analytical review, and which remain exclusively live-pilot gates? | Not every legal or institutional risk can be numerically simulated, while every structural risk needs traceable treatment. | Finding-to-suite traceability matrix before the first run. |
| OQ-597 | What amendment rule allows a new challenger or scenario after results without invalidating the original comparison? | Learning should improve the harness without permitting silent moving of the goalposts. | Versioned preregistration, frozen original runs, and separately labeled amended runs. |
| OQ-598 | Does Structural Simulation Design Package v0.1 give every material audit finding a faithful challenger, generated mechanism, truth treatment, or elimination rule? | A concise design package may omit a threat that is present in prose but absent from the executable model. | Finding-to-suite traceability review before PSB-005 implementation. |
| OQ-599 | Which parameter ranges and joint dependencies make the synthetic scenario matrix plausible without pretending to estimate real prevalence before data exist? | Arbitrary independent ranges can make a preferred architecture win or create impossible populations. | Expert elicitation, literature where applicable, broad sensitivity ranges, and explicit nonforecast labeling. |
| OQ-600 | Which preregistered materiality ranges convert continuous construct, contamination, stability, baseline, burden, and adverse-tail results into pass, fail, narrow, or inconclusive without creating a hidden blended score? | The constitutional zero rules are clear, but practical materiality must be fixed before comparative results and may differ by claim and harm. | Threshold workshop, bounded-loss analysis, simulated calibration without candidate labels, and independent statistical, consumer, worker, disability, privacy, and civil-rights review. |
| OQ-601 | Which space-filling, boundary, and targeted-adversarial run design gives adequate coverage of the 58 factors and fourteen joint dependencies without an infeasible Cartesian product or selective search? | Too few runs miss interactions; unlimited search creates computational waste and researcher degrees of freedom. | Freeze a design-generation algorithm, coverage diagnostics, expansion rule, and compute budget in PSB-008 before candidate results. |
| OQ-602 | Which signed registry and federation profile should express participants, roles, keys, endpoints, schemas, mappings, trust marks, policy, expiry, suspension, and revocation? | The architecture now selects the capability but not the exact protocol or trust topology. | Synthetic prototype comparing signed snapshots and OpenID Federation-style trust chains with multiple trust anchors and exit. |
| OQ-603 | Which event-signature, credential, issuance, presentation, status, and cryptographic profiles provide the necessary interoperability, unlinkability, agility, accessibility, and recovery? | Open standards offer several compatible and incompatible choices; naming standards is not a conformance profile. | Interoperability proof of concept, privacy threat model, conformance suite, and independent cryptographic review. |
| OQ-604 | Which standards, registry states, certifications, mappings, methods, claims, correction notices, reports, evaluations, and key transitions should become public accountability artifacts? | Too little transparency permits rewriting; too much creates permanent personal, worker, competitive, security, or confidential metadata. | Artifact-by-artifact public-interest, privacy, labor, competition, security, legal, and metadata classification. |
| OQ-605 | At what scale or threat does signed publication plus independent archives become insufficient and justify a witnessed append-only transparency service? | A dedicated log adds monitors, witnesses, receipts, incident response, shutdown, retention, and cost before it adds value. | Rollback, equivocation, sponsor-suppression, outage, and operator-compromise threat modeling with prototype evidence. |
| OQ-606 | Who may operate, witness, mirror, monitor, audit, suspend, replace, and wind down a transparency service, and how are inconsistent views handled? | Append-only technology is not self-governing and proof of misbehavior requires a human and institutional response. | Governance and operating design with independent witnesses, funding, evidence, incident procedure, and exit exercise. |
| OQ-607 | How are key rotation, compromise, historical verification, federation revocation, mass reissuance, algorithm retirement, and trust-anchor transition coordinated? | Signed systems can become unavailable, falsely trusted, or historically unverifiable when lifecycle and cryptographic agility are incomplete. | Key ceremony, compromise tabletop, historical-validation profile, multi-party approval, and migration rehearsal. |
| OQ-608 | Which signed supersession, reversal, active-state, status, fan-out, completion-receipt, retention, and restatement rules make correction effective without creating a permanent personal public record? | Immutable history and correctable active truth must remain separate across every downstream effect. | End-to-end correction prototype and failure injection across source, credential, proof, benefit, evaluator, and report states. |
| OQ-609 | Which signed query-package, source-execution, contribution-receipt, aggregation, cumulative-budget, output-review, correction, and method-manifest protocol supports OCA's unique reports? | Network intelligence needs demonstrable governed computation, not blockchain custody of raw inputs. | Federated-report prototype using synthetic member data, selective-contribution attacks, corrections, and independent rerun. |
| OQ-610 | Which future threat evidence would satisfy the blockchain reopening test, and who has authority to make that finding? | Without a demanding recorded standard, blockchain can return through vendor preference or decentralization branding. | Formal alternatives analysis and independent privacy, security, architecture, accessibility, governance, legal, cost, and exit review. |

## Resolved during pre-simulation design

- **OQ-595:** Closed by the version 0.1 PSB-001 through PSB-008 baselines and the passing deterministic dry run. The authorized first Suite A structural comparison is now complete; Stage 3 remains blocked.
- **OQ-596:** Closed by **Conduct Ecosystem — Finding-to-Suite Traceability Matrix**. Every finding now has a direct synthetic, analytical, external, or explicit-limit treatment.
- **OQ-597:** Closed for version 0.1 by the package amendment rule: every changed controlled file creates a new identity, requires disclosure of whether results were visible, and preserves the original package and runs.
- **OQ-598:** Closed by the same matrix and its automated identity check. All 125 audit IDs occur once; there are no missing, extra, or duplicate controlling rows. Implementation fidelity remains governed by PSB-005 through PSB-008.
- **OQ-601:** Closed for version 0.1 by the frozen experiment-design algorithm: central, joint-boundary, one-factor, every pairwise low/high corner, and sixteen deterministic space-filling cases per comparison group. Any expansion is a labeled amendment.

## Partially baselined during implementation

- **OQ-237 and OQ-258:** The founder-stage repository package activates CC BY 4.0 for identified original specification and explanatory material, Apache 2.0 for identified website and implementation code, and reserved project names, marks, brand assets, certification language, and official-status claims. Intentional contributions use the applicable repository license; datasets, personal data, brand designs, and patent-sensitive material require separate review and terms. Exact patent, conformance, certification, future-OCA, asset-transfer, and multi-party specification terms remain open and the package remains subject to focused legal review.
- **OQ-243:** The v0.5 public package selects the explanatory sites, current component pages, decision record, open questions, status, protections, bounded contribution policy, downloadable record, and clean public website repositories for publication.
- **OQ-599:** PSB-005 v0.1 now supplies broad nonforecast ranges and fourteen required joint-dependency rules. The question remains open for expert review and later empirical calibration; no current value is a claim about real prevalence.
- **OQ-600:** PSB-008 now fixes zero tolerance for direct invariant violations and requires continuous results to remain response surfaces, breakpoints, or inconclusive until an independent claim-specific materiality range is preregistered. The exact ranges remain open.
- **OQ-156:** Suite A v0.1 favors the +10, +3, −3, −10 calculation over conviction-net and direction-net as the provisional numerical research lead on the synthetic comparison. It does not settle whether people understand and use the choices as intended across cultures, languages, disabilities, work settings, and power relationships; human and field validation remains required.
- **OQ-116 and OQ-117:** Suite B v0.1 supports retaining routine fulfillment as a separately visible class with caps, diminishing influence, clustering, and diversity controls. Unlimited accumulation and total exclusion both fail structurally; the exact caps remain open.
- **OQ-121 and OQ-475:** Suite B v0.1 retains fulfilled-over-finalized as an internal gated research calculation and requires the event-class profile as the controlling representation. It does not authorize a consumer-facing 0–100 VCI, select the advanced reliability model, or settle the final presentation.
- **OQ-476:** The synthetic model shows that a governed VCI representation can add information beyond transaction count, economic value, and digital access under its declared assumptions. Real-world incremental value beyond existing transaction, loyalty, fraud, and commercial-risk records remains open and requires independent empirical research.
- **OQ-122 and OQ-479:** Suite C v0.1 remains the historical warning against unconstrained combination. The Review Gate 1 product contract and Suite K v0.1 supersede its lead consumer representation: K3 capped arithmetic now leads within one scope, K6 remains the performance challenger, the two-dimensional state becomes an explanation and control, and purpose-bound proof remains the default verifier output. Human validity, comprehension, cap value, display behavior, exact purpose, and context evidence remain open.
- **OQ-131:** Suite C supports a prospectively declared relevant-component rule: conjunction when both dimensions are necessary, or one valid dimension when the other is genuinely irrelevant. The benefit and purpose taxonomy that justifies each rule remains open.
- **OQ-001, OQ-134, OQ-317, and OQ-585:** The product contract selects one `x.yz` CQ as the lead surface, but synthetic work cannot determine whether readers and consumers understand its scale, hundredths, scope, non-score states, protected inputs, mixed evidence, or purpose proof. Direct comprehension and emotional-response testing remains required.
- **OQ-481:** Suite C supports entry-and-exit hysteresis as a structural control for threshold proofs and preserves completed-benefit protection. Exact thresholds, widths, pending behavior, refresh, grandfathering, and version transitions remain open by benefit.
- **OQ-132 and OQ-482:** Suite C found substantial transaction-volume dependence in proof availability even when conduct direction was separated from confidence. Noncommercial or naturally occurring sufficiency paths, dormancy effects, and acceptable proof loss remain open.
- **OQ-124 and OQ-477:** Suite D makes the independent, closely matched role-and-function family the lead portability research candidate and retains matched function across adjacent industries for bounded research. Same-industry membership does not establish relevance. Every real NCS and VCI mapping, coefficient, population, jurisdiction, and period remains open.
- **OQ-123 and OQ-582:** Suite D supports materially independent replication and source-lineage review as required mapping gates, but it does not select minimum incremental-value, calibration, fairness, stability, comprehension, issuer-diversity, or replication thresholds.
- **OQ-483 and OQ-588:** Suite D supports a fixed-source, purpose-bound proof that reveals no named company, competitor, source count, volume, or composition. Actual consumer comprehension and protocol resistance to auxiliary-data and composition attacks remain open.
- **OQ-002, OQ-113, and OQ-125:** Suite D still requires exact zero-default context mappings. Suite L v0.1 adds structural support for L4 overall CQ only as a fixed, independently supported, equal-context-family, weakest-context-capped summary with Context varies. Overall CQ remains outside the initial live pilot; real validity, necessity, comprehension, fairness, source-set, mapping, legal, and go/no-go evidence remains open and may still resolve to no.
- **OQ-133 and OQ-423:** Suite K advances K3 with a ten-internal-point cap as the next research setting and K6 as challenger. It rejects naïve arithmetic as the lead and rejects confidence-only standing movement. Final cap, calibration, proxy artifacts, stability, fairness, and real-world validity remain open.
- **OQ-001 and OQ-134:** Suite K supports deterministic two-decimal display without rounding-only rank reversal, but immediate recalculation produced substantial visible movement in the structural perturbation. Linear mapping, population distribution, example values, half-even rounding, settlement window, and `0.03` versus `0.05` persistence remain open for real-data and human research.
- **OQ-139 and OQ-485:** Suite E makes the eligible-only, zero-nonpresentation-record architecture the lead external protocol. Exact request fields, timing, telemetry segregation, auxiliary-data resistance, consent interface, and enterprise implementation remain open.
- **OQ-136, OQ-316, and OQ-489:** Suite E makes a modest but meaningful, genuinely non-positional benefit with additional capacity the lead initial family. The exact benefit, value, scarcity, fulfillment, reversibility, identity burden, remedy, and partner remain open.
- **OQ-137, OQ-273, OQ-315, and OQ-488:** Suite E confirms that baseline drift can manufacture apparent recipient value and makes preregistered baseline and nonparticipant adverse tails non-compensating gates. Exact measures, periods, groups, thresholds, stop rules, and independent access remain open.
- **OQ-487:** Suite E advances one-time authorization for launch and defers recurring permission. Any later recurring profile needs direct evidence on duration, recall, receipts, central visibility, revocation, renewal, downstream recipients, and material-change suspension.
- **OQ-486:** Suite E supports benefit eligibility as the only initial external proof family. It provides no justification for standalone participation, sufficiency, dimension, relationship, named-history, or general score proofs.
- **OQ-319:** Suite F makes minimal benefit-proportionate assurance the lead ordinary-proof profile and split/local/federated custody the lead composable direction. Exact wallet, issuer, verifier, status, storage, identity, administrative, and migration choices remain open.
- **OQ-268, OQ-493, and OQ-494:** Suite F supports action-specific step-up rather than one identity level. Exact assurance, duplicate, takeover, lending, replay, false-rejection, accessibility, and proportionality thresholds remain open and must be tied to concrete benefit and integrity harms.
- **OQ-498:** Suite F makes pre-loss authenticator redundancy and safe baseline fallback structural requirements. Exact total-loss recovery, restoration, merge, separation, notification, delay, review, and remedy paths remain open.
- **OQ-495, OQ-496, and OQ-497:** Suite F rejects central raw-history custody and supports a composition of functional separation, consumer-local computation, and protected federated retrieval. The actual operator, cloud, key, administrator, query-privacy, receipt, status, retention, and exit architecture remains open.
- **OQ-499:** Suite F confirms that delegation and shared-device handling cannot be inferred from ordinary transaction authority. Exact caregiver, guardian, assistant, travel-arranger, supported-decision, incapacity, death, shared-device, and safeguarding profiles remain open.
- **OQ-507 and OQ-508:** Suite G makes a governed hybrid the lead report portfolio, with secure aggregation preferred for suitable recurring statistics and fixed federated queries the lead practical early component. The exact report portfolio, technology, provider, purpose, cohort, cost, performance, and privacy architecture remain open.
- **OQ-509:** Suite G makes complete governed contribution, eligible-source reconciliation, missingness, correction, reversal, restatement, and source-change duties structural requirements. The exact contractual rights, audit evidence, retention, exit, correction service levels, and enforcement remain open.
- **OQ-510:** Suite G preserves separate public-interest, public editorial, member, and independent-research products and requires independent escalation of material harm. The severity taxonomy, verification window, confidentiality boundary, publication timing, and accountable authority remain open.
- **OQ-511:** Suite G confirms that cell size alone is insufficient and requires participant count, dominance, rarity, time-window, complementary-suppression, cumulative-query, auxiliary-data, and collusion controls. Every numerical and categorical threshold remains open by report family and jurisdiction.
- **OQ-512:** Suite G supports a Delta-like diagnostic using the member's own detailed data plus protected network benchmarks and independent interpretation. The first valuable questions, cohort, actionability, buyer, demand, and willingness to pay remain open.
- **OQ-513:** Suite G permits paid depth in approved analysis, cadence, interpretation, training, and service while prohibiting broader data and query access. Pricing, packaging, tiering, sales cycle, renewal, margin, and contribution to common costs remain open.
- **OQ-514:** Suite G requires a versioned method, cohort, source, query, suppression, funding, limitation, correction, and restatement manifest. The boundary between open credibility infrastructure and paid expression, tooling, and analyst service remains open.
- **OQ-515:** Suite G resolves no legal classification. Privacy, antitrust, competition, consumer-reporting, labor, trade-secret, database, research, cross-border, and sector restrictions require current primary-source analysis and specialist counsel against the exact report flow.
- **OQ-516:** Suite G makes report-driven collection expansion, retention growth, query growth, suppression weakening, and conversion into person or audience products prohibited drift indicators. The audit method, cadence, evidence access, thresholds, authority, and remedy remain open.
- **OQ-517:** Suite G reinforces independent methods and publication authority for the Research and Intelligence Office but cannot establish its real operating independence. Staffing, conflicts, client intake, methods review, commercial interface, publication authority, funding, and oversight remain open.
- **OQ-348:** Suite H makes a governed mixed coalition the lead end-to-end integration and assigns embedded, API or webhook, enterprise-side, and batch patterns to bounded roles. The exact first-platform composition, interfaces, provider count, cost, performance, and migration remain open.
- **OQ-352 and OQ-353:** Suite H retains certified minimized asynchronous exchange with signatures, scoped authorization, replay protection, idempotency, ordering, retries, quarantine, correction references, and key rotation. Exact protocols, algorithms, windows, service levels, identifiers, error behavior, and conformance vectors remain open.
- **OQ-360 and OQ-366:** Suite H confirms that proof, benefit fulfillment, correction, and safe failure are separate states and that capacity and latency can strand obligations. The exact benefit adapter, availability, latency, throughput, retry, reconciliation, replacement, notification, and remedy objectives remain open.
- **OQ-532 and OQ-538:** Suite H preserves the digital-first candidate strategy only for platforms that accept the complete separation and responsibility profile. The first platform, employer, business, source owner, verifier, benefit owner, corrector, remedy provider, and contractual role map remain open.
- **OQ-533 and OQ-534:** Suite H makes direct evaluator evidence and independently protected publication structural requirements. The exact data-rights schedule, denominator and lifecycle feed, factual and security review window, trade-secret boundary, publication authority, funding, and sponsor-exit protections remain open.
- **OQ-535 and OQ-547:** Suite H applies the prospective-clean gate to selection, sampling, prompts, interfaces, investigations, benefits, evaluator data, and downstream treatment. The complete legacy and derived-feature inventory, access paths, counterfactual tests, monitoring, and recertification triggers remain open.
- **OQ-542:** Suite H makes a production-shaped platform-loss exercise a launch gate. The exact export, key, evidence, provider, funding, benefit, correction, appeal, incident, deletion, communication, final-report, and wind-down package remains open.
- **OQ-545:** Suite H confirms zero tolerance for customer-linked non-Eligible state across the complete integration and shows that even small per-channel leakage composes materially. Exact payload, status, timing, callback, log, receipt, UI, CRM, loyalty, warehouse, support, and traffic behavior remains open.
- **OQ-546:** Suite H requires a privacy-minimized eligible-source-population ledger or equivalent direct evidence because signed delivered events cannot reveal pre-transmission omission. Exact fields, denominators, exceptions, retention, worker safeguards, evaluator access, reconciliation, and issuer-failure thresholds remain open.
- **OQ-548 and OQ-549:** Suite H defines correction as complete only after every active effect, future proof, evaluator output, report, notice, and remedy reaches the approved state. Exact fan-out targets, service levels, pause conditions, receipts, benefit replacement, compensation, apology, collective correction, and escalation remain open.
- **OQ-550:** Suite H reinforces actual administrative-domain testing and shows that nominal modules can collapse into one dossier-capable operator. The real platform, parent, vendor, cloud, warehouse, backup, key, support, incident, legal-response, bulk-export, and exit privilege graph remains open.
- **OQ-551 and OQ-552:** Suite H makes evaluator access direct but separable and preserves the prohibition on translating reports or member questions into person-level synthesis calls. The exact evaluator architecture, bounded evidence, privacy, deletion, reproduction, service accounts, query controls, and red-team profile remain open.
- **OQ-553:** Suite H does not resolve actor and responsibility attribution for group, delegated, shared, or marketplace interactions. Exact context-specific role maps, ambiguity suppression, clarification, notice, worker and consumer research, and legal authority remain open.
- **OQ-554 and OQ-556:** Suite H makes production-shaped journey conformance and material-change recertification structural requirements. Exact journeys, malicious configurations, change taxonomy, expiry, pause timing, ownership and vendor triggers, surveillance cadence, and restoration tests remain open.
- **OQ-555:** Suite H confirms that observability must reconstruct delivery and rights journeys without preserving customer-linked nonpresentation or worker profiles. Exact telemetry fields, aggregation, retention, access, sampling, reidentification controls, deletion, and incident exceptions remain open.
- **OQ-557:** Suite I keeps Stage 3 report revenue at zero and makes I2 diversified partner and unrestricted funding the lead funding pattern. The actual bottom-up normal, stress, severe-but-plausible, sponsor-exit, and wind-down budget remains open until a concrete pilot exists.
- **OQ-558 and OQ-560:** Suite I counts only usable committed support and requires replacement-cost and control mapping across related cash, staff, infrastructure, data, benefits, distribution, professional services, indemnity, and credibility. Actual enforceability, values, affiliations, withdrawal duties, and fallback providers remain open.
- **OQ-559:** Suite I makes separate funded maxima, leading indicators, and automatic pause structural requirements for consumers, interactions, prompts, events, proofs, benefits, ordinary and urgent cases, incidents, corrections, and tail. Exact volumes, queues, service levels, and pause thresholds remain open.
- **OQ-561:** Suite I makes explicit program and obligation ledgers a funding-independence control. The actual allocation method for direct, common, variable, episodic, tail, subsidy, reserve, restricted-fund, concentration, and replacement cost remains open.
- **OQ-562:** Suite I requires published program assessments and governed reviewer assignment, scope, rotation, evidence, reporting, surveillance, complaint, enforcement, and retest. Actual workload, fee schedule, staffing, rotation, and failure economics remain open.
- **OQ-563:** Suite I supports prospective pooled appeal readiness by role, scale, capacity, and risk, with independently validated repeated defects informing future bands or extraordinary remediation recovery. The exact formula, attribution standard, provider capacity, review, and limits remain open.
- **OQ-564:** Suite I permits a temporary OCA- or host-operated service only with separate ledgers, authority, access, review dates, interfaces, export, and replacement or separation conditions. Which services are necessary and their make, buy, compete, spinout, retirement, and timing decisions remain open.
- **OQ-565 and OQ-569:** Suite I requires timely liquid funding for every named material obligation without depending on optimistic insurance. Actual scenarios, policies, exclusions, deductibles, claims dates, limits, indemnities, reserve amounts, legal protection, and insolvency behavior remain open.
- **OQ-566:** Suite I makes dependable base funding for participation, accessibility, translation, open standards, evaluation, mandatory harm reporting, public-interest work, and smaller-implementer access a launch requirement. Exact allocations, payer shares, grant terms, and multi-year profile remain open.
- **OQ-567:** Suite I advances predictable base plus committed capacity and risk bands with transparent variable-cost reconciliation and rejects outcome-linked and behavior-distorting units. Actual prices, bands, margins, elasticity, subsidies, monitoring, and competition effects remain open.
- **OQ-568:** Suite I confirms that concentration thresholds must be stage-specific and cover related-party revenue, in-kind replacement cost, operating control, clients, sectors, and vendors. Exact disclosure, remediation, reserve, pause, and prohibition thresholds remain open.
- **OQ-570:** Suite I makes founder time and expense hard caps and converts excess Stage 0 demand into batching, backlog, deferral, stop-doing, or funded work. Brent's actual cadence, cap, expense ceiling, response language, intake form, stop-doing list, and funded-work trigger remain open for observation and choice.
- **OQ-571:** Suite J makes invitation- or assignment-population effect the preferred primary estimand when identifiable and ethical. The actual pilot assignment, outcome observation, identification assumptions, exclusions, fallback, and primary population remain open until a concrete design exists.
- **OQ-572:** Suite J requires a complete independently reconciled ladder from eligibility and invitation through withdrawal, missingness, correction, remedy, and follow-up. Exact states, source evidence, retention, privacy, access, and reconciliation tolerances remain open.
- **OQ-573:** Suite J resolves the interpretation rule: low power is uncertainty and cannot clear fairness or safety. Actual groups, intersections, recruitment, minimum information, qualitative methods, pooling limits, and claim narrowing remain open.
- **OQ-574:** Suite J requires the real assignment, observation, analysis, and inference units plus cluster-adjusted effective information. The actual dependency graph and statistical method remain open.
- **OQ-575:** Suite J requires explicit reasons and sensitivity to credible outcome-dependent missingness. Actual auxiliary evidence, retrieval, bounds, models, and claim triggers remain open.
- **OQ-576 and OQ-583:** Suite J requires a preregistered primary hierarchy and makes the primary result lead public reporting even when exploration is more favorable. Exact outcomes, models, looks, adjustment, amendment, publication, and reviewer authority remain open.
- **OQ-577:** Suite J makes follow-up specific to each risk and claim and requires a funded observation and remedy tail. Actual durations, contact rights, censoring, persistence checks, delayed-harm channels, and final dates remain open.
- **OQ-578:** Suite J confirms that zero observed harm cannot support a safety claim without detection coverage, precision or bounds, protected channels, escalation, and observation time. Actual detection sources, access, ownership, coverage, and stop thresholds remain open.
- **OQ-579 and OQ-584:** Suite J requires designs that separate self-selection, novelty, attention, training, staffing, fidelity, spillover, persistence, and benefit effects from the CQ mechanism. The exact shadow, matched, staged, blinded, causal, and qualitative design remains open.
- **OQ-580:** Suite J establishes that baseline rights, ordinary service parity, accessibility, correction, withdrawal, incident response, and remedy are never withheld or randomized. Ethical optional variations remain open to independent review against the concrete context.
- **OQ-581:** Suite J advances versioned analytical artifacts, aggregate validation, and governed independent rerun without publishing or permanently centralizing person-level histories. The actual controlled environment, access, retention, deletion, security, correction, and rerun architecture remains open.
- **OQ-582:** Suite J establishes that one site supports one site-specific result and that workflow, construct, intervention, and portability claims have separate non-inheriting replication burdens. The actual differences in site, period, operator, platform, population, context, and evaluator independence remain open.
- **Distributed-integrity decision:** The bounded comparison resolves that blockchain is not a required or initial foundation and that the standard remains ledger-neutral. Signed records, a signed governed registry, later signed federation, privacy-preserving credentials and status, distributed custody, governed report queries, correctable active state, and selectively applied non-personal transparency form the lead architecture. OQ-602 through OQ-610 retain the exact implementation, operator, artifact, lifecycle, report-protocol, and future-reopening questions.