Specification ID: CC-AAP-SPEC-01

Version: 0.1 Candidate

Date: 19 September 2026

Programme: Codex Commons

Standing: INTERNAL — CANDIDATE SPECIFICATION / HOSTILE REVIEW. NOT ADMITTED. NOT PUBLIC. NOT MACHINE-READABLE.

1. Purpose

The Assessment Assertion Profile (AAP) provides a small cross-domain semantic profile for identifying and qualifying the result of assessing a declared subject/aspect against an explicit assessment basis.

AAP preserves the distinction between:

assessment result · conformance claim · acceptance · certification · authority · runtime admissibility.

2. Problem

Assessment results are routinely over-promoted:

• implemented → conformant;
• observed success → conformant;
• test pass → accepted;
• conformance → certified;
• certification → legally authorised;
• accepted exception → conformant;
• conformant design → safe/admissible runtime action.

AAP makes the assessment assertion explicit without owning downstream governance.

3. Scope

AAP defines:

1. Assessment Assertion identity;
2. subject/aspect binding;
3. assessment basis binding;
4. outcome reference/value;
5. provenance;
6. temporal/scope qualification;
7. anti-collapse invariants;
8. interoperability guidance.

AAP does not define:

• universal conformance outcomes;
• acceptance;
• waiver/exception authority;
• certification;
• legal compliance;
• execution admissibility;
• evidence ontology;
• provenance ontology;
• test/validation language.

4. Assessment Assertion

An Assessment Assertion states the result of assessing a declared subject/aspect against an explicit assessment basis, under declared provenance and applicable method, scope and time.

Assessment Assertions are first-class where they need citation, conflict, acceptance, supersession or revalidation.

5. Required fields

Every material AAP assertion MUST identify:

1. assessment_assertion_id
2. subject_ref
3. subject_aspect_or_scope
4. assessment_basis_ref
5. assessment_outcome_ref_or_value
6. assessment_provenance

6. Required when material

• subject version/snapshot;
• assessment-basis version/profile;
• assessment method/procedure;
• evidence refs;
• assessment time;
• evidence observation/effective time;
• environment/jurisdiction/applicability.

7. Optional / linked

• assessor/tool;
• limitations/qualification;
• confidence/quantitative result;
• conflict refs;
• invalidation/supersession;
• revalidation trigger;
• conformance claim ref;
• acceptance decision ref;
• exception/waiver ref;
• certification/credential ref;
• authority ref.

These remain separately governed.

8. Assessment basis

Assessment outcome is basis-relative.

Candidate expression:

Outcome(subject, aspect, basis, scope, time)

not:

Outcome(subject).

Assessment basis may be:

• SHACL shapes graph;
• schema/profile;
• test specification;
• control requirement/profile;
• regulatory criterion;
• quality specification;
• evaluation benchmark/profile;
• accreditation criteria.

Basis identity/version must be recoverable where material.

9. Outcome semantics

AAP does not define universal outcomes.

Use outcome semantics from the applicable basis/domain where possible.

A categorical outcome MUST NOT be inferred from a quantitative/probabilistic result unless the basis/method explicitly licenses the threshold/decision rule.

10. Evidence

Evidence supports assessment.

Evidence ≠ assessment outcome.

AAP references evidence/provenance but does not define a universal evidence-sufficiency vocabulary.

Sampling, coverage, currentness and limitations belong in method/evidence qualification where relevant.

11. Time and currentness

Assessment assertion records what was concluded at/for a declared time/window.

Stale evidence does not erase historical assessment.

Continuous assessment should preserve time-bounded assertion history or versioned current assertions rather than overwrite one timeless flag.

12. Subject identity

Assessment binds to a sufficiently stable subject/aspect/version/snapshot.

If the subject changes materially during assessment:

• segment assessment; or
• bind to immutable snapshot/version; or
• record limitation.

13. Conflict

Conflicting Assessment Assertions may coexist.

AAP does not choose the winner.

Each retains basis, method, evidence, provenance, time and standing.

14. Waiver / exception

A waiver/exception is downstream governance.

Example:

NON-CONFORMANCE → WAIVER/EXCEPTION → ACCEPTANCE

The waiver does not rewrite the assessment outcome as conformant.

15. Core invariants

I1 Assessment is basis-relative.

I2 Assessment is subject/aspect-relative.

I3 Assessment is time-relative where subject/evidence changes.

I4 Evidence ≠ assessment outcome.

I5 Implementation ≠ conformance.

I6 Observed success ≠ complete conformance.

I7 Assessment ≠ acceptance.

I8 Assessment ≠ certification.

I9 Assessment ≠ authority.

I10 Conformance ≠ runtime admissibility.

I11 Waiver does not rewrite non-conformance.

I12 Conflicting assessments may coexist.

I13 Historical findings remain reconstructable.

I14 Probabilistic result ≠ categorical conformance unless basis licenses it.

I15 Basis change does not silently rewrite historical finding.

I16 Subject change requires bounded identity/snapshot handling.

I17 Automated assessment is permitted with provenance.

I18 Public assessment result does not automatically establish acceptance/authority.

16. Interoperability

SHACL

Reuse SHACL validation/conformance semantics for RDF/data validation where applicable.

AAP may reference SHACL reports/results; it does not replace them.

PROV-O

Reuse provenance for assessment activities, agents, evidence, generation, derivation and revision.

RRAP

RRAP qualifies roles of representations/evidence participating in assessment.

AAP is not an RRAP role.

QMAP

QMAP may relate requirements, controls, concepts or profiles.

Mapping assertion ≠ assessment assertion.

Commons Non-Promotion Rule

AAP is governed by:

No unlicensed semantic promotion.

17. Examples

EX1 — Data validation

Subject: dataset/version.

Basis: schema/SHACL profile.

Outcome: domain-defined validation result.

Acceptance by consuming application remains separate.

EX2 — Cybersecurity

Subject: configured control.

Basis: security requirement/profile.

Evidence: configuration + runtime test.

Outcome: assessment finding.

Risk acceptance/waiver remains separate.

EX3 — Building

Subject: system/aspect.

Basis: code/inspection criterion.

Outcome: inspection finding.

Occupancy permission/certification remains separate.

EX4 — AI model

Subject: model/version.

Basis: evaluation profile.

Outcome: metrics/findings.

Deployment approval remains separate.

EX5 — QMAP assertion

Subject: mapping assertion.

Basis: mapping-quality/interoperability profile.

Outcome: assessment finding.

The mapping relation itself is unchanged.

EX6 — Proposed design

Subject: design snapshot.

Basis: architecture/profile requirement.

Outcome: design assessment.

Does not establish implementation conformance.

EX7 — Continuous control

Subject: control version.

Basis: control criterion.

Repeated/windowed assertions preserve history.

EX8 — Waiver

Assessment finds non-conformance.

Separate governance grants bounded exception.

Finding remains non-conformant.

18. Adoption

A consumer adopts AAP when it:

• identifies material assessment assertions;
• binds them to subject/aspect and explicit basis;
• preserves outcome semantics from the applicable domain;
• preserves provenance;
• records material time/scope/version;
• does not promote finding to acceptance/certification/authority/admissibility;
• preserves conflict/history.

19. Candidate conformance

A future implementation could claim AAP profile conformance only if:

1. required fields are representable;
2. basis/outcome/provenance are reconstructable;
3. time/version/scope can be represented where material;
4. conflicting/historical assertions can be preserved;
5. outcome semantics are not silently normalised;
6. downstream acceptance/certification/authority remain separable.

No Commons conformance programme currently exists.

20. Hostile specification review

HSR-01 — Can basis be omitted?

NO — FAIL if omitted.

HSR-02 — Can evidence equal outcome?

NO — PASS.

HSR-03 — Can implementation imply conformance?

NO — PASS.

HSR-04 — Can waiver rewrite non-conformance?

NO — PASS.

HSR-05 — Can conformant imply accepted?

NO — PASS.

HSR-06 — Can certification imply runtime permission?

NO — PASS.

HSR-07 — Can automated tool assert finding?

YES with provenance — PASS.

HSR-08 — Can conflicting findings coexist?

YES — PASS.

HSR-09 — Can probabilistic score be forced into PASS?

Only if basis licenses threshold — PASS.

HSR-10 — Can subject change during test be ignored?

NO — PASS.

HSR-11 — Can continuous assessment overwrite history?

NO — PASS.

HSR-12 — Does AAP require universal outcome vocabulary?

NO — PASS.

HSR-13 — Does AAP replace SHACL/test/audit models?

NO — PASS.

HSR-14 — Does public finding establish authority?

NO — PASS.

Hostile specification result: PASS.

21. Remaining risks

1. “Assessment Assertion Profile” acronym AAP is heavily overloaded.
2. generic assessment-result patterns may already cover most mechanics.
3. mandatory first-class identity may be heavy for disposable validation results.
4. assessment basis/outcome semantics vary substantially by domain.
5. public naming remains unresolved.
6. IP/publication review incomplete.

22. Naming

Working descriptive name:

Assessment Assertion Profile.

Do not commit public acronym yet.

Candidates for later test:

• Assessment Assertion Profile;
• Assessment Result Assertion Profile;
• Qualified Assessment Assertion Profile;
• Assessment Finding Profile.

23. Admission checklist

24. Decision

CC-AAP-SPEC-01 v0.1 CANDIDATE — SPECIFICATION HOSTILE REVIEW PASS.

Advance to focused generic assessment-assertion prior-art + naming review.

No admission/publication/namespace/schema authorised.

Linked

• 🧪CC-EXP-C05-CONF-03 — Assessment Assertion Semantic Stability & Hard Counterexample Test v0.1
• 🔎CC-EXP-C05-CONF-02 — Assessment Assertion Prior-Art & Standards Reduction v0.1
• 🧪CC-EXP-C05-CONF-01 — Conformance / Acceptance Boundary — Decomposition & Generality Test v0.1