Software Dependency Standard - (SDS)

OOF® Origin Open Foundation®

Independent Methodological Authority

Architecture: SLGA™ — Software Lifecycle Governance Architecture
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Software Lifecycle Governance
Type: Parent Standard
Governed Space: Software Dependency Governance
Standard ID: SLGA-SDS-003
Origin ID: OOF.PS.SLGA.03.01
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Standard
Effective Date: 11.10.2026
Compatibility: OOF® Methodology OS™ · Modular OOF® Architecture Ecosystem
GIE-Compatible: Yes
AI-Readable: Yes
Authority: OOF® — OriginOpen® Foundation
Protection: MIP® — Methodological Intellectual Property
Canonical Language: English (UCL™)

Canonical Definition

The Software Dependency Standard (SDS) governs the identification,

introduction, recognition, evaluation, authorization, maintenance,
change, and continuity of software dependencies upon which a software
system relies for its creation, operation, modification, or continued
support.

SDS establishes the methodological conditions under which a software

dependency may be recognized as a governed relationship between a
software system and an external or internal software component,
service, library, platform, interface, execution environment, or other
software-related resource.

It governs the relationship between a software dependency's identity,

origin, purpose, necessity, authority, compatibility, constraints,
material risks, change conditions, evidence, and lifecycle continuity.

SDS distinguishes the technical ability to use a dependency from legitimate

authority to introduce it, the presence of a dependency from evidence
that it is necessary or suitable, and the current functionality of a
dependency from assurance that its availability, compatibility, or
support will continue.

SDS applies across programming languages, development methodologies,

software architectures, deployment environments, AI-assisted
development, autonomous software creation, and distributed software
ecosystems.

Its principal output is:

Governed Software Dependency State

Its foundational distinction is:

Software Dependency Availability ≠ Governed Software Dependency

Operational Role

The operational role of SDS is:

To ensure that software dependencies remain identifiable, justified,
authorized, bounded, compatible, evidence-supported, and subject to
reassessment as their technical, operational, organizational, or
lifecycle conditions change.

SDS establishes the dependency-governance layer of SLGA™.

It governs the conditions under which a software system may rely on
other software-related resources.

It does not prohibit the use of external libraries, open-source
components, cloud services, automated development tools, or complex
dependency networks.

Instead, it establishes the conditions under which reliance on those

resources can be recognized, evaluated, maintained, and reconsidered.

SDS recognizes that software dependency governance is not limited to
the initial decision to include a component.

A dependency may remain technically functional while becoming
unsupported, incompatible, unavailable, unmaintained, materially
changed, or unsuitable for the software system's continued operation.

Core Question

How can software systems depend on internal and external software
resources while preserving dependency identity, legitimate inclusion,
justified reliance, compatibility, change control, evidence, and
operational continuity throughout the software lifecycle?

Position in Architecture Governance Flow

The SLGA™ governance flow is:

Software Requirements → Software Creation → Software Dependencies →

Software Configuration → Software Quality → Software Security →
Software Release → Software Deployment → Software Change Management →
Software Retirement

Cross-cutting:

Software Lifecycle Control

Software Dependencies

It is the third Parent Standard of SLGA™.

Its principal upstream governance references include:

Governed Software Requirements Baseline

from Software Requirements Standard (SRS).

Governed Software Creation State

from Software Creation Standard (SCS).

Its principal output is:

Governed Software Dependency State

That state supports:

Software Configuration Standard (SCFS)

Software Quality Standard (SQS)

Software Security Standard (SSS)

Software Release Standard (SRLS)

Software Deployment Standard (SDPS)

Software Change Management Standard (SCMS)

Software Retirement Standard (SRTS)

Software Lifecycle Control Standard (SLCS)

Dependency governance may begin during requirements formation or
software creation and continue through deployment, maintenance, and
retirement.

The SLGA™ governance flow represents relationships between governed

lifecycle domains rather than a mandatory waterfall sequence.

Governed Space

Software Dependency Governance

This space governs the conditions under which a software system

establishes, uses, changes, and terminates material dependency
relationships.

Its principal governance dimensions include:

Dependency identification
Dependency purpose
Dependency necessity
Dependency origin
Dependency ownership and control references
Dependency introduction authority
Dependency inclusion conditions
Dependency compatibility
Dependency relationship structure
Dependency criticality
Dependency risk
Dependency constraints
Dependency change
Dependency continuity
Dependency evidence
Dependency governance states
Dependency reassessment
Dependency lifecycle handoff

The governed space is independent of any particular package manager,
software vendor, repository, programming language, or development
platform.

Software Dependency Governance Object

Every SDS assessment shall identify the Software Dependency Governance

The object represents a dependency relationship or defined dependency set

subject to governance.

It should identify:

Dependency Governance Identity: The identifiable dependency
assessment.

Dependent Software Object: The software system relying on the
dependency.

Dependency Identity: The software resource upon which reliance exists.

Dependency Type: The relevant dependency classification.

Dependency Purpose: The reason the dependency is used.

Dependency Origin: The source or provenance reference.

Dependency Authority: The applicable introduction or use authority.

Dependency Scope: The permitted dependency relationship.

Dependency Version or State: The relevant technical dependency
condition.

Dependency Compatibility: The applicable compatibility relationships.

Dependency Criticality: The significance of the dependency to the

software system.

Dependency Risk: Material dependency-related risks.

Dependency Evidence: Evidence supporting the dependency relationship.

Dependency Governance State: The current recognized dependency
condition.

The dependency governance object shall remain distinguishable from the

software component itself.

Dependency Artifact Identity ≠ Dependency Relationship Identity.

Software Dependency Recognition

is recognized as a dependency.

A dependency exists where a software system materially relies on
another resource for a defined creation, execution, maintenance, or
lifecycle function.

Recognition may concern:

Direct dependencies
Transitive dependencies
Runtime dependencies
Development dependencies
Build dependencies
Service dependencies
Platform dependencies
Interface dependencies
Operational support dependencies

A resource shall not be excluded from governance solely because it is
not listed in a conventional software package manifest.

Package Manifest Entry ≠ Complete Dependency Recognition.

Dependency Identity Governance

SDS shall establish identifiable references for material software

dependencies.

Relevant identity information may include:

Canonical dependency name
Supplier or source reference
Package or service identity
Version
Release identity
Repository reference
Relevant artifact identifiers
Applicable origin evidence
Material identity uncertainty

Dependency identity shall remain sufficiently precise to distinguish

materially different versions or resources.

Dependency Name ≠ Verified Dependency Identity.

Dependency Origin Governance

SDS shall preserve relevant origin and provenance references for material

dependencies.

Origin may concern:

Software publisher
Maintainer
Repository
Distribution source
Package registry
Internal development organization
External supplier
Generated component source
Relevant transformation history

Origin evidence shall be evaluated according to the claim it supports.

The existence of a publisher name does not independently establish
authenticity, legitimacy, or continued maintenance.

Claimed Dependency Origin ≠ Verified Dependency Provenance.

Detailed origin and artifact integrity governance remains within
competent OOF® identity and SCS artifact integrity domains.

Dependency Purpose Governance

SDS shall establish the purpose for which a dependency is introduced
or maintained.

Relevant purposes may include:

Implementing required functionality
Supporting execution
Providing an interface
Enabling development
Supporting testing
Providing build capabilities
Enabling interoperability
Supporting operational continuity

A dependency may provide useful functionality without being necessary
or suitable for the governed software objective.

Dependency Utility ≠ Dependency Necessity.

Dependency Necessity Governance

SDS shall evaluate whether material reliance on a dependency is
justified relative to the software system's requirements and intended
operation.

Relevant considerations may include:

Functional necessity
Alternative implementation possibilities
Technical constraints
Operational conditions
Maintenance implications
Resource requirements
Integration complexity
Dependency criticality

SDS does not require every dependency to be indispensable.

It requires material dependency decisions to remain sufficiently justified

for their intended governance context.

Dependency Convenience ≠ Governed Dependency Justification.

Dependency Introduction Authority

SDS shall identify the applicable authority basis for introducing a

dependency.

Relevant conditions may include:

Authorized software creation objective
Permitted dependency categories
Approved sources
Applicable organizational restrictions
Delegated development authority
Required approval conditions
Relevant licensing or contractual references

A developer or autonomous agent may possess technical permission to
install a dependency without possessing legitimate authority to
introduce it into the governed software system.

Package Installation Capability ≠ Dependency Introduction Authority.

Dependency Inclusion Conditions

SDS shall establish the conditions under which a dependency may be
included in a software system.

Relevant considerations may include:

Dependency identity
Applicable requirements
Legitimate introduction authority
Dependency purpose
Compatibility
Material risks
Applicable constraints
Evidence sufficiency
Required reassessment conditions

A dependency may be conditionally accepted.

Acceptance may depend on restrictions, replacement obligations,
monitoring, or additional assessment.

Dependency Inclusion ≠ Unconditional Dependency Acceptance.

Direct Dependency Governance

SDS shall identify dependencies directly introduced or referenced by the

governed software system.

Direct dependencies may include:

Imported libraries
Declared packages
Linked software components
Explicit service integrations
Required runtime platforms
Direct development tool dependencies

Direct dependency recognition shall preserve the relationship between the

dependent software object and the relied-upon resource.

Declared Direct Dependency ≠ Fully Governed Dependency.

Transitive Dependency Governance

SDS shall identify material dependencies introduced indirectly through
other dependencies.

A relevant chain may be:

Software System → Direct Dependency → Transitive Dependency → Further

Dependency

Transitive dependencies may create material risk or continuity
conditions even where the software developer did not explicitly select
them.

SDS shall preserve relevant relationship depth and uncertainty.

Indirect Dependency ≠ Irrelevant Dependency.

Dependency Network Governance

Software systems may rely on complex dependency networks.

SDS shall support representation of material dependency relationships as a

structured network.

Relevant relationships may include:

Direct reliance
Indirect reliance
Shared dependency
Conditional dependency
Alternative dependency
Critical dependency
Version-specific dependency
Service-to-service dependency

Network representation shall reflect supported dependency relationships

rather than inferred associations alone.

Dependency Graph Existence ≠ Verified Dependency Network.

Dependency Scope Governance

SDS shall identify the scope within which a dependency is applicable.

Scope may concern:

Software component
Application
Development environment
Build environment
Runtime environment
Deployment environment
Geographic or organizational context
Specific feature
Defined software version

A dependency accepted for one scope shall not automatically be considered

accepted for every other scope.

Dependency Acceptance in One Context ≠ Universal Dependency
Acceptance.

Dependency Version Governance

SDS shall identify the relevant versions or states of material
dependencies.

Version governance may consider:

Version identity
Release status
Compatibility
Maintenance status
Support conditions
Relevant changes
Version constraints
Evidence of actual use

A dependency name without a sufficiently identified version may be
inadequate for material governance assessment.

Dependency Version Label ≠ Verified Dependency State.

Dependency Compatibility Governance

SDS shall evaluate material compatibility relationships between a

dependency and the software system relying on it.

Compatibility may concern:

Programming interfaces
Data formats
Runtime environments
Operating systems
Software versions
Build conditions
Communication protocols
Relevant behavioral assumptions

A dependency may be technically installable while remaining
incompatible with the intended software system.

Installability ≠ Dependency Compatibility.

Dependency Constraint Governance

SDS shall identify material constraints affecting dependency use.

Constraints may include:

Version restrictions
Platform requirements
Licensing conditions
Resource requirements
Interface limitations
Organizational restrictions
Geographic availability
Supplier conditions
Operational dependencies

Constraint recognition shall preserve the distinction between technical

restrictions and legitimate governance boundaries.

Technical Constraint ≠ Complete Governance Constraint.

Dependency Criticality Governance

SDS shall assess the significance of material dependencies to the software

system.

Criticality may depend on:

Functional importance
Failure consequences
Availability of alternatives
Replacement difficulty
Operational reliance
Dependency concentration
Recovery conditions
Downstream impact

A small software library may be operationally critical.

A large dependency may be comparatively replaceable.

Dependency Size ≠ Dependency Criticality.

Dependency Risk Governance

SDS shall identify material risks arising from dependency
relationships.

Relevant risk categories may include:

Availability risk
Compatibility risk
Maintenance risk
Supplier risk
Concentration risk
Replacement risk
Version-change risk
Operational continuity risk
Integrity uncertainty
Relevant security risk references

SDS governs the dependency relationship and its risk implications.

Detailed software security assessment remains within Software Security
Standard (SSS).

Dependency Risk Identification ≠ Dependency Risk Resolution.

Dependency Concentration Governance

SDS shall identify material reliance on common dependencies or dependency

providers.

Concentration may occur where:

Multiple applications rely on one library
Several services depend on one platform
Numerous components rely on one external API
A critical software ecosystem depends on one maintainer
Multiple dependency paths converge on one shared resource

Concentration may create correlated failure or continuity exposure.

Multiple Dependency Paths ≠ Independent Dependency Resilience.

Dependency Substitutability

SDS shall assess whether a material dependency can be replaced without
unacceptable disruption to the governed software objective.

Relevant considerations may include:

Available alternatives
Interface compatibility
Data portability
Migration effort
Replacement authority
Technical adaptation
Operational disruption
Evidence of replacement feasibility

The existence of an alternative product does not establish practical
substitutability.

Alternative Availability ≠ Effective Dependency Substitutability.

Dependency Continuity Governance

SDS shall preserve the conditions under which material dependency

relationships may remain supportable over time.

Continuity may depend on:

Supplier availability
Maintainer activity
Version support
Technical compatibility
Access conditions
Operational availability
Replacement readiness
Dependency change monitoring

Current functionality does not establish future continuity.

Current Dependency Functionality ≠ Dependency Continuity Assurance.

Dependency Maintenance Governance

SDS shall identify material maintenance conditions affecting software

dependencies.

Relevant considerations may include:

Maintainer identity
Maintenance activity
Support status
Update availability
Known compatibility changes
Deprecation
End-of-support conditions
Relevant maintenance evidence

A dependency may remain functional after active maintenance has ended.

Functional Dependency ≠ Maintained Dependency.

Dependency Update Governance

SDS shall establish the conditions under which material dependency updates

are evaluated and recognized.

An update may affect:

Dependency identity
Version
Compatibility
Functionality
Security exposure
Integration requirements
Operational continuity
Applicable constraints

An available update shall not automatically be treated as appropriate or

authorized.

Update Availability ≠ Update Authorization.

Dependency Change Governance

SDS shall preserve material changes in dependency relationships.

Changes may include:

Addition
Removal
Replacement
Version change
Source change
Supplier change
Interface change
Scope change
Dependency role change
Continuity-condition change

Material dependency changes may require reassessment of downstream
software lifecycle states.

Dependency Change ≠ Isolated Technical Modification.

Detailed lifecycle change control remains within Software Change
Management Standard (SCMS).

Dependency Replacement Governance

SDS shall establish the conditions under which a material dependency
may be replaced.

Relevant considerations may include:

Replacement objective
Existing dependency identity
Candidate replacement identity
Compatibility
Migration conditions
Authority
Relevant risks
Continuity
Evidence

Replacement shall not be recognized solely because the new dependency

provides similar functionality.

Functional Similarity ≠ Governed Dependency Equivalence.

Dependency Removal Governance

SDS shall identify the conditions under which a dependency may be
removed.

Relevant considerations may include:

Continued reliance
Transitive dependency effects
Compatibility implications
Software functionality
Operational conditions
Relevant evidence
Downstream lifecycle impact

Removing a declared dependency does not automatically establish that
the software system no longer relies on it.

Manifest Removal ≠ Dependency Elimination.

Dependency Obsolescence

SDS shall identify material dependency obsolescence.

Obsolescence may arise through:

End of maintenance
End of support
Platform incompatibility
Supplier discontinuation
Technological replacement
Unavailable updates
Unsupported execution environments

An obsolete dependency may remain operational.

Its continued use requires assessment of the applicable dependency

governance conditions.

Operational Dependency ≠ Sustainable Dependency.

Dependency Availability

SDS shall identify material availability conditions affecting dependency

reliance.

Availability may concern:

Package registries
Software repositories
External services
License servers
Runtime platforms
Build services
Required distribution channels

Availability at one point in time does not establish continued access.

Dependency Availability Today ≠ Dependency Availability Tomorrow.

Dependency Supplier and Maintainer Governance

SDS shall preserve relevant relationships with dependency suppliers,

publishers, and maintainers.

Relevant conditions may include:

Supplier identity
Maintainer identity
Distribution responsibility
Support arrangements
Relevant control changes
Maintenance continuity
Material supplier uncertainty

SDS does not independently establish contractual liability or
ownership rights.

Supplier Identification ≠ Supplier Accountability Determination.

Autonomous Dependency Introduction

AI agents and autonomous development systems may introduce
dependencies during software creation.

SDS shall preserve the relevant dependency-governance conditions regardless

of the actor performing introduction.

Relevant considerations may include:

Authorized development objective
Dependency selection
Introduction authority
Source
Version
Compatibility
Material risk
Resulting software reliance
Evidence

An agent's ability to install packages does not establish unlimited
authority to expand the dependency network.

Autonomous Dependency Selection ≠ Autonomous Dependency Authorization.

Detailed autonomous execution control remains within ASCCM.

AI-Generated Dependency Relationships

AI-assisted software creation may introduce dependency relationships
that are not explicitly recognized by the developer.

Examples may include:

Generated imports
Suggested package installations
External service calls
Generated integration code
Model-selected frameworks
Automated dependency resolution

SDS shall identify material dependencies arising from generated
software.

The fact that a dependency was introduced through AI-generated code
does not eliminate the need for governance.

AI-Generated Dependency ≠ Automatically Governed Dependency.

Dependency Evidence

SDS shall preserve evidence supporting material dependency
relationships.

Relevant evidence may include:

Dependency manifests
Package lockfiles
Artifact identifiers
Source references
Version records
Integration records
Compatibility assessments
Dependency graphs
Supplier information
Maintenance records
Change records
Relevant approval references

Evidence requirements shall reflect dependency materiality.

Dependency Record Existence ≠ Dependency Evidence Sufficiency.

Dependency Evidence Integrity

SDS shall evaluate the integrity of material dependency evidence.

Relevant considerations may include:

Evidence origin
Content integrity
Temporal relevance
Version correspondence
Source reliability
Preservation history
Material contradictions
Evidence completeness

A generated dependency manifest may not reflect every runtime or
service dependency.

Generated Dependency Manifest ≠ Verified Dependency Reality.

Dependency Traceability

SDS shall preserve material relationships between dependencies and the

software systems that rely on them.

Relevant traceability may include:

Software Object → Dependency → Version → Purpose → Authority →

Compatibility → Risk → Evidence

Dependency traceability shall support reconstruction of material reliance

relationships.

A recorded dependency link does not independently establish
compatibility or acceptance.

Recorded Dependency Link ≠ Governed Dependency Traceability.

Dependency Uncertainty

Dependency governance may remain uncertain where:

Dependency identity is incomplete
Transitive relationships are unknown
Origin evidence is missing
Version information is unreliable
Compatibility is unresolved
Supplier continuity is uncertain
Material constraints are unclear
Actual runtime reliance cannot be reconstructed

SDS shall preserve material uncertainty.

Uncertain Dependency ≠ Verified Dependency.

Uncertainty in one relationship shall not automatically invalidate every

other supported dependency relationship.

Dependency Conflict

Dependency conflicts may arise where:

Required versions are incompatible
Multiple components require contradictory interfaces
Dependency sources disagree
Supplier conditions conflict
Integration constraints cannot be reconciled
Recorded dependencies differ from actual runtime conditions

SDS shall identify material conflicts and preserve supporting
evidence.

Technical resolution of a conflict does not automatically establish
that the resulting dependency change was authorized.

Technical Dependency Resolution ≠ Governance Conflict Resolution.

Dependency Gap

A Dependency Governance Gap exists where a material dependency
condition cannot be sufficiently established.

Examples include:

Unknown dependency origin
Missing version identity
Unrecognized transitive dependency
Unresolved introduction authority
Unsupported compatibility assumption
Missing maintenance information
Insufficient continuity evidence

SDS shall identify the gap and its relevance to the governed software

system.

Dependency Governance Gap ≠ Automatic Software Invalidity.

Critical Dependency Gap

A Critical Dependency Governance Gap exists where missing or
contradictory information prevents reliable assessment of a materially
consequential dependency relationship.

Examples may include:

An unidentified component supporting a critical system function
A major external service with unknown continuity conditions
An unverified dependency introduced into safety-relevant
software
A critical package with unresolved origin and version evidence
A transitive dependency whose failure could materially affect
several

systems.

SDS shall preserve the critical gap and support competent escalation.

It does not independently determine software release rejection,
operational suspension, or liability.

Critical Dependency Gap Identification ≠ Operational Decision
Authority.

Dependency Drift

Dependency Drift occurs when actual software dependency relationships
materially diverge from the recognized dependency state.

Possible causes include:

Automatic package updates
Unrecorded installations
Transitive dependency changes
External service changes
Build environment changes
Supplier changes
Runtime dependency substitutions
AI-generated modifications

SDS shall identify material drift and support reassessment.

Previously Governed Dependency ≠ Permanently Governed Dependency.

Dependency Governance States

SDS shall support identifiable dependency governance states.

Possible states include:

Identified: The dependency relationship has been recognized.

Under Assessment: Material dependency conditions are being evaluated.

Conditionally Accepted: Acceptance depends on explicit conditions.

Accepted: Applicable dependency governance conditions are sufficiently
established.

Restricted: Dependency use is subject to defined limitations.

Evidence-Limited: Available evidence is insufficient.

Origin-Unresolved: Material origin conditions remain unsupported.

Compatibility-Unresolved: Material compatibility conditions remain

Authority-Unresolved: Applicable introduction or use authority cannot be

sufficiently established.

Continuity-at-Risk: Material continuity conditions are threatened.

Conflicted: Material dependency conditions contradict one another.

Rejected: The dependency has not satisfied applicable acceptance

Superseded: Another governed dependency state has replaced the previous

state.

Retired: The dependency relationship has been formally ended within
the applicable scope.

Unresolved: Available information does not support a sufficiently
determined state.

These states shall not automatically be interpreted as software security,

quality, or release determinations.

Dependency Accepted ≠ Software Product Accepted.

Dependency Acceptance

SDS shall determine whether a dependency may be recognized as accepted
for its intended governance scope.

Acceptance should consider:

Dependency identity
Origin
Purpose
Necessity
Introduction authority
Inclusion conditions
Compatibility
Constraints
Criticality
Material risks
Continuity
Evidence sufficiency
Uncertainty
Required reassessment conditions

Acceptance may be conditional or restricted.

Acceptance shall remain specific to the dependency relationship and context

assessed.

Dependency Acceptance ≠ Universal Dependency Approval.

Dependency Reassessment

SDS shall support reassessment when material dependency conditions
change.

Triggers may include:

New dependency versions
Supplier changes
Maintenance changes
Support termination
Compatibility changes
New vulnerabilities
Material operational incidents
Dependency replacement
Dependency concentration changes
New evidence
Dependency drift
Changed software requirements

Reassessment shall preserve historical dependency states where
necessary for reconstruction.

Dependency Continuity Across Software Lifecycle

SDS shall preserve material dependency relationships throughout the

relevant software lifecycle.

Continuity may involve:

Software creation
Configuration
Quality assessment
Security assessment
Release
Deployment
Maintenance
Change
Retirement

Dependency governance shall not be treated as complete merely because the

initial software creation activity has ended.

Dependency Acceptance at Creation ≠ Dependency Acceptance for Every Later

Lifecycle State.

Dependency Lifecycle Handoff

SDS shall provide relevant dependency-governance information to competent

downstream SLGA™ processes.

Relevant information may include:

Dependency identity
Dependency version
Dependency relationships
Acceptance conditions
Compatibility
Material constraints
Criticality
Risks
Continuity conditions
Evidence
Uncertainty
Reassessment triggers

SDS does not independently perform downstream quality, security,
release, deployment, or retirement assessments.

Dependency Governance Completion ≠ Downstream Lifecycle Governance

Core Modules

SDS contains five Core Modules. CIM — Component Identification Module

Governs the identification and classification of material software

dependency components, including their identities, versions, roles,
origins, and relationships to dependent software objects.

Its principal focus is:

Governed Software Component Identification

DOTM — Dependency Origin & Traceability Module

Governs the origin, provenance, source relationships, and

evidence-supported traceability of software dependencies across
direct, transitive, generated, and externally supplied dependency
paths.

Its principal focus is:

Governed Dependency Origin & Traceability

DSM — Dependency Suitability Module

Governs the assessment of dependency necessity, appropriateness,

compatibility, constraints, and suitability for the intended software
context.

Its principal focus is:

Governed Dependency Suitability

CICM — Component Introduction & Change Module

Governs the introduction, inclusion, modification, replacement, update, and

removal of software dependencies under applicable authority, scope,
and change conditions.

Its principal focus is:

Governed Component Introduction & Change

DCRM — Dependency Continuity & Risk Module

Governs material dependency risks, criticality, maintenance conditions,

concentration, substitutability, availability, and continuity across
the software lifecycle.

Its principal focus is:

Governed Dependency Continuity & Risk

These modules establish the internal SDS governance flow:

Component Identification → Dependency Origin & Traceability → Dependency

Suitability → Component Introduction & Change → Dependency Continuity
& Risk

The flow represents the principal governance relationships between the

modules.

It does not require every dependency assessment to follow a fixed
chronological sequence.

Software Dependency Governance Principles

SDS establishes the following principles. Principle 1 — Dependency
Identity Before Acceptance

A dependency must be sufficiently identified before its governance
state can be reliably assessed. Principle 2 — Reliance Must Be
Recognized

Material dependency relationships must not remain invisible merely
because they are indirect, generated, or outside conventional package
manifests. Principle 3 — Introduction Requires Legitimate Authority

Technical installation capability does not establish permission to
introduce a dependency. Principle 4 — Purpose Must Remain Connected to
Requirements

Material dependencies must remain connected to a justified software
purpose or applicable requirement. Principle 5 — Suitability Is
Context-Dependent

A dependency suitable for one software context may be unsuitable for
another. Principle 6 — Compatibility Is Not Acceptance

Technical compatibility does not independently establish legitimate
dependency use. Principle 7 — Dependency Networks Matter

Direct and transitive relationships may create material risks that are
not visible when components are assessed individually. Principle 8 —
Continuity Must Be Reassessed

A dependency accepted today may become unsuitable, unsupported, or
unavailable later. Principle 9 — Evidence Before Governance Claims

Dependency acceptance must remain supported by evidence appropriate to
the claim. Principle 10 — Dependency Acceptance Is Not Product
Certification

A governed dependency state does not establish the correctness,
security, or release readiness of the dependent software system.

Governance Requirements

SDS establishes the following Parent Standard governance requirements.

SDS-GR-01 — Dependency Object Identification

Material dependency relationships shall be identifiable.

SDS-GR-02 — Dependency Identity

Material dependencies shall possess sufficiently distinguishable identities

and relevant version references.

SDS-GR-03 — Dependency Origin

Relevant dependency origin and provenance conditions shall be identifiable

or explicitly unresolved.

SDS-GR-04 — Dependency Purpose

Material dependencies shall remain connected to an identifiable software

SDS-GR-05 — Dependency Necessity

Material reliance shall be assessed against applicable requirements and

software objectives.

SDS-GR-06 — Introduction Authority

Dependency introduction shall remain within applicable authority
boundaries.

SDS-GR-07 — Dependency Scope

Dependency acceptance shall remain bounded by its applicable software

SDS-GR-08 — Direct and Transitive Recognition

Material direct and transitive dependency relationships shall be

SDS-GR-09 — Compatibility

Material compatibility conditions shall be assessed and preserved.

SDS-GR-10 — Constraint Recognition

Relevant dependency restrictions and conditions shall be identified.

SDS-GR-11 — Criticality Assessment

Material dependency criticality shall be assessed.

SDS-GR-12 — Risk Recognition

Material dependency-related risks shall be identified and evaluated
within the competent governance scope.

SDS-GR-13 — Dependency Change

Material dependency changes shall be recognized and subject to applicable

SDS-GR-14 — Continuity

Material dependency continuity conditions shall remain identifiable and

subject to reassessment.

SDS-GR-15 — Evidence Preservation

Dependency governance claims shall remain supported by sufficient
evidence.

SDS-GR-16 — Governance State Recognition

Material dependency relationships shall have identifiable governance
states.

SDS-GR-17 — Uncertainty and Conflict

Material dependency uncertainty, conflicts, and gaps shall remain
explicit.

SDS-GR-18 — Lifecycle Handoff

Relevant dependency-governance information shall remain available to

competent downstream software lifecycle governance processes.

Governance Logic

The canonical SDS governance logic is:

Receive Governed Software Requirements Baseline

↓

Receive Governed Software Creation State

↓

Identify Software Dependency Governance Object

↓

Identify Dependent Software Object

↓

Discover Material Dependency Relationships

↓

Identify Direct and Transitive Dependencies

↓

Establish Dependency Identity and Version

↓

Assess Dependency Origin and Provenance References

↓

Identify Dependency Purpose

↓

Assess Dependency Necessity

↓

Identify Dependency Introduction Authority

↓

Establish Dependency Scope

↓

Identify Dependency Constraints

↓

Assess Dependency Compatibility

↓

Assess Dependency Criticality

↓

Identify Material Dependency Risks

↓

Assess Dependency Concentration and Substitutability

↓

Assess Maintenance and Availability Conditions

↓

Assess Dependency Continuity

↓

Preserve Dependency Evidence

↓

Identify Dependency Gaps, Conflicts, and Uncertainty

↓

Determine Dependency Acceptance Conditions

↓

Determine Dependency Governance State

↓

Establish Governed Software Dependency State

↓

Preserve Dependency Continuity and Traceability

↓

Handoff to Competent SLGA™ Lifecycle Governance Domains

↓

Reassess When Material Dependency Conditions Change

The principal output is:

Governed Software Dependency State

Governance Outputs

SDS may produce:

Software Dependency Governance Object

Dependent Software Object Reference

Dependency Identity Record

Dependency Classification

Dependency Origin Record

Dependency Purpose Record

Dependency Necessity Assessment

Dependency Introduction Authority Reference

Dependency Inclusion Conditions

Direct Dependency Record

Transitive Dependency Record

Dependency Network Map

Dependency Scope Record

Dependency Version Record

Dependency Compatibility Assessment

Dependency Constraint Record

Dependency Criticality Assessment

Dependency Risk Record

Dependency Concentration Assessment

Dependency Substitutability Assessment

Dependency Continuity Assessment

Dependency Maintenance Record

Dependency Update Assessment

Dependency Change Record

Dependency Replacement Record

Dependency Removal Record

Dependency Obsolescence Assessment

Dependency Availability Assessment

Dependency Supplier and Maintainer Record

Autonomous Dependency Introduction Record

AI-Generated Dependency Record

Dependency Evidence Record

Dependency Evidence Integrity Assessment

Dependency Traceability Record

Dependency Uncertainty State

Dependency Conflict Record

Dependency Governance Gap

Critical Dependency Governance Gap

Dependency Drift Record

Dependency Governance State

Dependency Acceptance Record

Dependency Reassessment Record

Dependency Lifecycle Continuity Record

Dependency Lifecycle Handoff Record

The principal output is:

Governed Software Dependency State

Critical Distinctions

SDS preserves the following distinctions:

Software Dependency Availability ≠ Governed Software Dependency Acceptance

Dependency Artifact Identity ≠ Dependency Relationship Identity

Package Manifest Entry ≠ Complete Dependency Recognition

Dependency Name ≠ Verified Dependency Identity

Claimed Dependency Origin ≠ Verified Dependency Provenance

Dependency Utility ≠ Dependency Necessity

Dependency Convenience ≠ Governed Dependency Justification

Package Installation Capability ≠ Dependency Introduction Authority

Dependency Inclusion ≠ Unconditional Dependency Acceptance

Declared Direct Dependency ≠ Fully Governed Dependency

Indirect Dependency ≠ Irrelevant Dependency

Dependency Graph Existence ≠ Verified Dependency Network

Dependency Acceptance in One Context ≠ Universal Dependency Acceptance

Dependency Version Label ≠ Verified Dependency State

Installability ≠ Dependency Compatibility

Technical Constraint ≠ Complete Governance Constraint

Dependency Size ≠ Dependency Criticality

Dependency Risk Identification ≠ Dependency Risk Resolution

Multiple Dependency Paths ≠ Independent Dependency Resilience

Alternative Availability ≠ Effective Dependency Substitutability

Current Dependency Functionality ≠ Dependency Continuity Assurance

Functional Dependency ≠ Maintained Dependency

Update Availability ≠ Update Authorization

Dependency Change ≠ Isolated Technical Modification

Functional Similarity ≠ Governed Dependency Equivalence

Manifest Removal ≠ Dependency Elimination

Operational Dependency ≠ Sustainable Dependency

Dependency Availability Today ≠ Dependency Availability Tomorrow

Supplier Identification ≠ Supplier Accountability Determination

Autonomous Dependency Selection ≠ Autonomous Dependency Authorization

AI-Generated Dependency ≠ Automatically Governed Dependency

Dependency Record Existence ≠ Dependency Evidence Sufficiency

Generated Dependency Manifest ≠ Verified Dependency Reality

Recorded Dependency Link ≠ Governed Dependency Traceability

Uncertain Dependency ≠ Verified Dependency

Technical Dependency Resolution ≠ Governance Conflict Resolution

Dependency Governance Gap ≠ Automatic Software Invalidity

Critical Dependency Gap Identification ≠ Operational Decision Authority

Previously Governed Dependency ≠ Permanently Governed Dependency

Dependency Accepted ≠ Software Product Accepted

Dependency Acceptance ≠ Universal Dependency Approval

Dependency Acceptance at Creation ≠ Dependency Acceptance for Every Later

Lifecycle State

Dependency Governance Completion ≠ Downstream Lifecycle Governance

Cross-Architecture Boundary

SDS governs software dependency relationships within SLGA™.

It does not independently establish general legal authority, software
artifact integrity, software quality, software security, or release
authorization.

Within SLGA™:

Software Requirements Standard (SRS) governs the requirements basis.

Software Creation Standard (SCS) governs the creation of software

Software Dependency Standard (SDS) governs the dependency relationships

upon which software relies.

Software Configuration Standard (SCFS) governs configuration states.

Software Quality Standard (SQS) governs software quality.

Software Security Standard (SSS) governs software security.

Software Release Standard (SRLS) governs release decisions.

Software Deployment Standard (SDPS) governs deployment conditions.

Software Change Management Standard (SCMS) governs broader lifecycle

changes.

Software Retirement Standard (SRTS) governs retirement.

Software Lifecycle Control Standard (SLCS) governs cross-cutting

lifecycle control.

Relevant interoperating OOF® architectures include:

GOA™ — Governance Architecture: General authority and delegation

AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture: Responsibility and

accountability relationships.

ASGA™ — Autonomous Systems Governance Architecture: Autonomous execution

AGI™ — Agent Governance Infrastructure: Agent permissions, delegation,

and tool-path governance.

OBIDENITY® — Origin-Bound Identity Governance Architecture: Applicable

origin, identity, ownership, and provenance relationships.

ORA™ — Operational Reality Architecture: Competent operational reality

SDS preserves relevant dependency-governance relationships without

replacing the competent responsibilities of these architectures.

Canonical Boundary

SDS begins when a software system materially relies, or is proposed to
rely, on an internal or external software-related resource.

SDS governs:

SDS does not independently determine:

General legal or organizational authority
Software requirements legitimacy
Software creation integrity
Complete artifact provenance
Software configuration validity
Software functional correctness
Software security conformance
Intellectual property ownership
Contractual liability
Release readiness
Deployment authorization
Retirement completion

SDS ends when the relevant dependency relationship or dependency set
has been represented as a:

Governed Software Dependency State

with sufficient identity, purpose, authority, compatibility, risk,

evidence, continuity, uncertainty, and governance-state information
for competent software lifecycle governance.

Canonical Closing Statement

Modern software rarely operates independently.

Applications rely on libraries, packages, platforms, interfaces, external

services, runtime environments, and complex networks of direct and
transitive dependencies.

These dependencies may be introduced by human developers, automated
tools, AI coding assistants, or autonomous software creation systems.

A dependency may be easy to install.

It may provide valuable functionality.

It may work correctly today.

Yet none of these conditions independently establishes that the
dependency is legitimate, suitable, sufficiently understood, or
sustainable.

A technically compatible library may have uncertain origin.

An available external service may become unavailable.

A maintained dependency may introduce material changes.

An autonomous coding agent may install a component without possessing
the authority to introduce it.

And a software system may rely on dependencies that are not visible in
its declared package manifest.

Software Dependency Availability ≠ Governed Software Dependency

Acceptance.

Package Installation Capability ≠ Dependency Introduction Authority.

Dependency Utility ≠ Dependency Necessity.

Installability ≠ Dependency Compatibility.

Current Dependency Functionality ≠ Dependency Continuity Assurance.

Dependency Accepted ≠ Software Product Accepted.

SDS establishes the methodological conditions under which software reliance

becomes an identifiable and governed relationship.

It ensures that dependency identity, origin, purpose, authority,
suitability, constraints, risk, and continuity remain visible
throughout the software lifecycle.

It does not require software to eliminate dependencies.

It requires material dependencies to remain governable.

SDS transforms software dependencies from technical implementation

conveniences into governed lifecycle relationships — ensuring that
software systems may rely on external and internal resources without
allowing technical availability, installation success, or present
functionality to substitute for legitimate dependency acceptance,
evidence-supported suitability, and sustainable operational
continuity.

Module Architecture

→ CIM — Component Identification Module

→ DOTM — Dependency Origin & Traceability Module

→ DSM — Dependency Suitability Module

→ CICM — Component Introduction & Change Module

→ DCRM — Dependency Continuity & Risk Module

→ About Software Dependency Standard (SDS)