OOF™ Origin Open Foundation™

Independent Methodological Authority

OriginID: OOF-OID-INTEGROS-IMS-IEM-2026-07-17-0004
Architecture Ecosystem: Structured Reality Standards™
Architecture Family: INTEGROS® — Integrity Governance Architecture
Parent Standard: Integrity Measurement Standard (IMS)
Operational Layer: Meta-Integrity Governance Layer
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Integrity Governance
Type: Parent Standard Module
Governed Space: Integrity Evaluation
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Module
Origin Date: 17 July 2026
Compatibility: OOF Methodology OS · GOA™ · OBIDENITY® · ART™ · ORA™ · AGA™ · AIG® · CLIA® ·
MGIA™ · ASGA™
AI-Readable: Yes
Authority: OOF®
Protection: MIP™ — Methodological Intellectual Property
Canonical Language: English (UCL)

Governed Space

Integrity Evaluation

Canonical Definition

Integrity Evaluation Module (IEM) defines the governance methods used to
evaluate integrity by interpreting integrity metrics, indicators, thresholds,
and supporting evidence. It establishes the standardized evaluation process
required to determine the current integrity condition of a governed entity
throughout its complete lifecycle.

Operational Role

IEM governs the evaluation layer of integrity measurement by transforming
objective measurement data into governed integrity assessments that support
consistent operational, regulatory, and governance decision-making.

Minimum Implementation Framework

1. Define Integrity Evaluation Criteria

Identify the evaluation criteria, assessment objectives, evidence
requirements, and governance principles used to determine integrity.

2. Define Evaluation Methodology

Establish standardized evaluation procedures, scoring logic, weighting
methods, interpretation rules, and consistency requirements for every
integrity assessment.

3. Define Evaluation Validation Logic

Define how evaluation results are verified for completeness, consistency,
repeatability, objectivity, and governance compliance before acceptance.

4. Define Governance Response

Establish governance actions for acceptable evaluations, uncertain
evaluations, degraded evaluations, failed evaluations, re-evaluation,
escalation, and corrective actions.

5. Preserve Evaluation Records

Maintain evaluation methodologies, assessment results, supporting evidence,
governance approvals, historical evaluations, revisions, and audit records
throughout the complete lifecycle.

Example Use Cases

Use Case 1 — AI Governance Assessment

Scenario

An enterprise evaluates whether an AI system continues to satisfy governance
requirements using integrity metrics, operational indicators, compliance
evidence, and predefined thresholds.

Application

IEM applies the approved evaluation methodology to produce a standardized
integrity assessment that supports governance decisions.

Result

Integrity is evaluated objectively using a repeatable governance methodology
rather than subjective interpretation.

Use Case 2 — Aviation Safety Oversight

Scenario

An aviation authority evaluates the operational integrity of aircraft
maintenance records, inspection history, safety compliance, and technical
documentation.

Application

IEM integrates all integrity measurements and evidence into a governed
evaluation process before determining operational acceptability.

Result

Aircraft integrity is assessed consistently using standardized governance
evaluation procedures supported by objective evidence.

Canonical Closing Statement

Integrity is not determined by measurements alone but by their governed
evaluation. Integrity Evaluation Module establishes the canonical governance
process that transforms objective integrity measurements into consistent,
evidence-based integrity assessments, enabling reliable governance decisions
throughout the complete lifecycle of every governed entity.