Standard 0.5 supersedes this two-dimensional proposal with one contextual Conduct Quotient while preserving the two inputs underneath it.
Read the current versionConduct Quotient
This part of the standard brings eligible human ratings and verified operational records together for a specific context. It does not assume they should become one universal number.
PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY
What this page establishes
Conduct Quotient (CQ) interprets eligible Net Conduct Score (NCS) and Verified Conduct Index (VCI) history for a specific use. It considers confidence, recency, disputes, patterns, and whether evidence from one context is relevant to another.
The current proposal keeps NCS and VCI visible as two separate dimensions. For an approved use, the system may return one private positive proof. We have not established that a single overall CQ would be valid.
Definition and role
CQ MUST preserve the distinct meaning, provenance, confidence, and validity rules of NCS and VCI. A calculation MUST NOT average away a failure in either component.
Any CQ display or use MUST allow NCS and VCI to be inspected separately.
Current representation
The current proposal shows two contextual dimensions instead of one average. An implementation may add a purpose-specific proof only after the evidence and the exact use meet their approval requirements.
Human experience
Operational evidence
recency, dispute
POSITIVE PROOF
FIGURE 7.2-A The components remain distinct. The proof reveals an approved result, not the underlying history.
Evidence sufficiency
CQ MUST be able to return insufficient history. More transactions, higher spending, or history from one concentrated source MUST NOT automatically create stronger standing.
| Condition | Required treatment | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Sparse eligible history | No CQ presentation or proof | REQUIRED |
| One concentrated source | Apply concentration limits | CANDIDATE |
| Material active dispute | Pause affected use | REQUIRED |
| Contradictory dimensions | Preserve contradiction | REQUIRED |
Open questions
OQ-001What should the consumer see: two dimensions, categories, or proof eligibility?+
The current direction keeps human experience and verified follow-through separate. Research still needs to determine whether numbers, categories, explanations, or proof availability are easiest to understand without creating false precision.
Respond to this questionOQ-002Could one overall Conduct Quotient ever be valid and useful?+
The initial system does not use one overall number. A combined result would advance only if evidence showed that it added understanding without allowing strength in one component to hide weakness in the other.
Respond to this questionOQ-123How much evidence is enough before a profile or proof becomes available?+
The threshold must consider eligible interactions, independent sources, participation, concentration, and uncertainty—not transaction volume alone. The exact requirements remain an empirical question.
Respond to this questionOQ-126How quickly should different kinds of evidence become less relevant?+
A human response, a routine fulfilled responsibility, and a resolved material event may need different treatment over time. Research must test recency rules, recovery, and the risk of making old history permanent.
Respond to this question