OOF™ Origin Open Foundation™

Independent Methodological Authority

OriginID: OOF-OID-INTEGROS-ISS-ISCM-2026-07-21-0001
Architecture Ecosystem: Structured Reality Standards™
Architecture Family: INTEGROS® — Integrity Governance Architecture
Parent Standard: Integrity State Standard (ISS)
Operational Layer: Meta-Integrity Governance Layer
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Integrity Governance
Type: Parent Standard Module
Governed Space: Integrity State Classification
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Module
Origin Date: 21 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 State Classification

Canonical Definition

Integrity State Classification Module (ISCM) defines the governance framework
for classifying the current operational state of integrity. It establishes the
standardized integrity state categories, classification criteria, and decision
rules required to consistently determine and communicate the integrity
condition of a governed entity throughout its complete lifecycle.

Operational Role

ISCM governs the classification layer of integrity state management by
ensuring that every governed entity is assigned a consistent, objective, and
standardized integrity state based on validated governance evidence.

Minimum Implementation Framework

1. Define Integrity State Categories

Identify the standardized integrity states used by the organization, such as
maintained, degraded, compromised, suspended, restored, or other approved
governance states.

2. Define Classification Requirements

Establish the governance criteria, evidence requirements, decision rules, and
measurement dependencies required to assign each integrity state.

3. Define Classification Validation Logic

Define how integrity state classifications are verified for consistency,
completeness, objectivity, and compliance with the approved governance
methodology.

4. Define Governance Response

Establish governance actions associated with each integrity state, including
monitoring, escalation, operational restrictions, corrective actions,
restoration, or reassessment.

5. Preserve Classification Records

Maintain integrity state definitions, classification decisions, supporting
evidence, state history, governance approvals, and audit records throughout
the complete lifecycle.

Example Use Cases

Use Case 1 — Autonomous AI Platform

Scenario

An enterprise AI platform continuously evaluates operational integrity using
governance measurements and evidence.

Application

ISCM classifies the platform as Maintained, Degraded, or Compromised according
to standardized governance criteria.

Result

Integrity is represented consistently across all AI systems, enabling
objective governance and operational decision-making.

Use Case 2 — Critical Infrastructure

Scenario

A national energy operator continuously evaluates the integrity of power grid
operations using operational measurements, inspections, and compliance
evidence.

Application

ISCM classifies the current integrity condition using standardized integrity
state categories governed by the organization.

Result

Operators, auditors, and regulators share a common understanding of the
operational integrity condition through consistent state classification.

Canonical Closing Statement

Integrity governance requires more than measurements—it requires a common
language for representing operational reality. Integrity State Classification
Module establishes the canonical framework for classifying integrity
consistently, enabling objective governance decisions, standardized
communication, and continuous integrity management throughout the complete
lifecycle of every governed entity.