OOF™ Origin Open Foundation™

Independent Methodological Authority

OriginID: OOF-OID-INTEGROS-IMS-ISM-2026-07-17-0005
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 Scoring
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 Scoring

Canonical Definition

Integrity Scoring Module (ISM) defines the governance framework for converting
integrity measurements and evaluation results into standardized integrity
scores. It establishes the scoring models, calculation methods, weighting
principles, and classification rules required to represent integrity
consistently throughout the complete lifecycle of a governed entity.

Operational Role

ISM governs the scoring layer of integrity measurement by transforming
evaluated integrity into standardized numerical or categorical scores that
enable comparison, benchmarking, reporting, monitoring, and governance
decision-making.

Minimum Implementation Framework

1. Define Integrity Scoring Model

Establish the scoring methodology, score ranges, weighting factors,
aggregation methods, and classification model used to represent integrity.

2. Define Scoring Requirements

Define the governance rules for score calculation, normalization, weighting,
comparability, repeatability, and consistency across all governed entities.

3. Define Score Validation Logic

Define how integrity scores are verified for calculation accuracy,
methodological consistency, evidence completeness, and governance compliance
before acceptance.

4. Define Governance Response

Establish governance actions associated with each scoring level, including
monitoring, escalation, corrective action, re-evaluation, certification, or
operational restrictions.

5. Preserve Scoring Records

Maintain scoring methodologies, calculation models, weighting revisions,
historical scores, governance approvals, benchmarking results, and supporting
evidence throughout the complete lifecycle.

Example Use Cases

Use Case 1 — AI Governance Certification

Scenario

An AI provider assigns integrity scores to deployed AI systems based on
governance compliance, operational reliability, audit evidence, and policy
adherence.

Application

ISM applies a standardized scoring model to convert integrity evaluations into
comparable governance scores.

Result

Every AI system receives an objective integrity score that supports
certification, benchmarking, procurement, and continuous governance
monitoring.

Use Case 2 — Supply Chain Governance

Scenario

A global manufacturer evaluates suppliers using integrity measurements
covering compliance, quality, traceability, security, and operational
reliability.

Application

ISM converts these evaluation results into standardized supplier integrity
scores used for procurement and ongoing governance oversight.

Result

Supplier integrity can be compared objectively across the entire supply chain
using consistent governance scoring.

Canonical Closing Statement

Integrity scoring transforms governance evaluation into an objective and
comparable representation of integrity. Integrity Scoring Module establishes
the canonical framework for calculating, classifying, and governing integrity
scores, enabling consistent benchmarking, transparent reporting, and
evidence-based governance throughout the complete lifecycle of every governed
entity.