Standard ID: VDTS
OriginID: OOF-OID-AI-VALIDOS-VDTS-2026-08-11-0008
Architecture: VALIDOS™ — Validation Governance Architecture
Category: AI & Interpretation
Subcategory: Validation Governance
Type: Parent Standard
Governed Space: Validation Determination
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Standard
Effective Date: 11 August 2026
Compatibility: OOF® Methodology OS™ · GOA™ · OBIDENITY® · INTEGROS®
· ORA™ · AGA™ · AIG® · CLIA® · MGIA™ · ASGA™ · RIS™
AI-Readable: Yes
Authority: OOF®
Protection: MIP® — Methodological Intellectual Property
Canonical Language: English (UCL™)

Canonical Definition

Validation Determination Standard (VDTS) defines the governance
conditions under which the complete governed validation record is
evaluated, integrated, interpreted, bounded, and transformed into a
formal Validation Determination establishing what the executed
validation legitimately demonstrates about the Validation Object
relative to the applicable Validation Criteria, thresholds,
conditions, evidence, methodological limitations, execution
conformity, uncertainty, conflicts, and approved Validation Scope.

Canonical Definition Extension

Validation execution produces results.

Results alone do not create a legitimate validation conclusion.

A validation process may generate:

• measurements,
• test outputs,
• statistical findings,
• expert assessments,
• observations,
• simulations,
• criterion outcomes,
• contradictory findings,
• unresolved uncertainty,
• execution limitations,
• and residual deviations.

These elements must be interpreted within the governed structure
established by VALIDOS™.

Validation Determination Standard therefore governs
the transformation:

Governed Validation Record → Validation Finding → Criterion
Determination → Integrated Validation Determination

VDTS establishes the conditions necessary to determine:

• which execution results may legitimately participate in determination,
• which Validation Criteria have sufficient determination basis,
• whether individual criteria are satisfied,
• not satisfied,
• conditionally satisfied,
• or not determinable,
• how multiple criterion outcomes interact,
• how mandatory and non-mandatory criteria differ,
• how contradictory findings are treated,
• how uncertainty affects determination,
• how residual execution limitations propagate,
• whether evidence and source conditions constrain interpretation,
• whether determination must be scoped or conditional,
• whether sufficient basis exists for an overall determination,
• and what the governed validation record actually demonstrates.

VDTS does not create a permanent Validation State.

It does not authorize operational reliance.

It determines the validation conclusion supported by the governed
validation record.

Core Question

What does the complete governed validation record legitimately
demonstrate about the Validation Object relative to the applicable
Validation Criteria and governed validation conditions?

Purpose

The purpose of Validation Determination Standard is to prevent
validation conclusions from being reduced to:

• raw test scores,
• simple pass/fail labels,
• majority voting,
• selective evidence,
• favorable averages,
• ungoverned expert opinion,
• arbitrary weighting,
• or conclusions broader than the validation process can legitimately support.

VDTS creates the interpretive governance layer between:

Validation Execution and:

Validation State

It ensures that a validation conclusion represents what the governed
validation process actually demonstrates—not what stakeholders hoped
it would demonstrate.

Governance Objective

VDTS establishes a governed Validation Determination framework
capable of producing conclusions that are:

• criterion-grounded,
• evidence-aware,
• source-aware,
• execution-aware,
• scope-bounded,
• uncertainty-aware,
• conflict-aware,
• limitation-aware,
• methodologically proportionate,
• traceable,
• and suitable for later Validation State assignment.

The standard seeks to ensure that:

• only determination-ready execution enters conclusion formation,
• criterion outcomes remain distinguishable,
• critical criteria retain appropriate significance,
• missing information is not converted into failure or success,
• contradictory results remain visible,
• uncertainty is preserved,
• conditional findings remain conditional,
• determination scope cannot exceed executed scope,
• invalid execution portions do not silently contribute,
• aggregation remains methodologically justified,
• and every Validation Determination can be reconstructed from the validation record supporting it.

Operational Role

Validation Determination Standard serves as the formal conclusion
layer of the VALIDOS™ validation lifecycle.

The preceding standards establish:

Validation Object → Validation Purpose & Scope → Validation Criteria
→ Validation Method → Validation Evidence Fitness → Validation
Source Reliability → Validation Execution

VDTS then asks:

What does that complete governed validation record
actually demonstrate?

Its structural progression is:

Determination-Ready Execution → Result Qualification → Criterion
Determination → Conflict & Uncertainty Integration → Cross-Criterion
Interpretation → Overall Determination → Validation
Determination Record

The resulting determination can then progress into Validation
State governance.

Governance Scope

Validation Determination Standard governs:

• validation-result qualification,
• determination basis,
• criterion-level determination,
• criterion satisfaction,
• criterion non-satisfaction,
• conditional satisfaction,
• non-determinability,
• mandatory criterion treatment,
• critical criterion treatment,
• cross-criterion interpretation,
• determination aggregation,
• determination hierarchy,
• contradictory findings,
• determination conflict,
• uncertainty integration,
• limitation integration,
• residual execution impact,
• evidence-condition propagation,
• source-condition propagation,
• determination scope,
• partial determination,
• conditional determination,
• negative determination,
• indeterminate determination,
• overall Validation Determination,
• determination authority where applicable,
• determination traceability,
• determination change,
• and determination reassessment.

Validation Determination Basis

A Validation Determination should be derived from a sufficiently
governed determination basis.

This may include:

• Validation Object reference,
• Validation Purpose,
• actual Validation Scope,
• Validation Depth,
• Validation Criteria,
• applicable thresholds,
• acceptance and rejection conditions,
• Validation Method Framework,
• Evidence Fitness information,
• Source Reliability information,
• Validation Execution Record,
• Execution Completeness status,
• Execution Conformity status,
• execution outputs,
• residual deviations,
• unresolved exceptions,
• limitations,
• conflicts,
• uncertainty,
• and Determination Readiness.

The determination basis defines what information may legitimately
support the validation conclusion.

Determination-Ready Execution

VDTS should consume only execution that is sufficiently ready
for determination.

This may include:

Determination Ready

or:

Determination Conditionally Ready

execution.

Where execution is:

Determination Not Ready

or:

Determination Blocked

VDTS should not manufacture a substantive validation conclusion
unsupported by the execution basis.

Execution Quality and Object Outcome Are Different

VALIDOS™ maintains:

Execution Conformity ≠ Validation Success

A perfectly conformant validation may demonstrate that the
Validation Object fails.

Conversely:

Execution Invalidity ≠ Object Invalidity

Invalid execution may prevent VALIDOS™ from knowing whether the
object satisfies the Validation Criteria.

VDTS therefore interprets object outcomes only from execution
capable of legitimately supporting them.

Validation Result Qualification

Not every result generated during execution should automatically
contribute to determination.

A result may be:

• valid for determination,
• conditionally usable,
• limited in scope,
• superseded,
• affected by deviation,
• affected by unreliable source conditions,
• methodologically incomparable,
• or unusable.

VDTS governs which execution results form the legitimate
determination basis.

Criterion Determination

Every applicable Validation Criterion should receive an explicit
determination where sufficient basis exists.

Possible criterion-level outcomes may include: Criterion Satisfied

The governed validation record sufficiently demonstrates
satisfaction of the criterion under the applicable conditions.

Criterion Conditionally Satisfied

The criterion is satisfied only within explicit limitations,
assumptions, boundaries, operating conditions, or other
governed restrictions.

Criterion Not Satisfied

The governed validation record sufficiently demonstrates that the
required criterion condition has not been satisfied.

Criterion Not Determinable

The governed validation record does not provide sufficient
legitimate basis to determine whether the criterion is satisfied or
not satisfied.

These outcomes remain distinct.

Not Determinable Is a Legitimate Outcome

VALIDOS™ establishes:

Insufficient basis for determination ≠ Criterion failure

and:

Insufficient basis for determination ≠ Criterion satisfaction

Where the validation record cannot legitimately answer the criterion
question, the correct outcome is:

Criterion Not Determinable

This prevents uncertainty from being converted into false certainty.

Criterion Satisfaction

Criterion Satisfaction must remain connected to:

• the exact criterion,
• threshold where applicable,
• acceptance conditions,
• actual execution outputs,
• evidence,
• applicable source conditions,
• scope,
• object version,
• and relevant limitations.

A satisfied criterion should therefore be reconstructable rather
than asserted.

Criterion Non-Satisfaction

A criterion should be classified as Not Satisfied only where the
governed validation record provides sufficient basis to
demonstrate non-satisfaction.

Absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of failure.

Therefore:

No Proof of Satisfaction ≠ Proof of Non-Satisfaction

Conditional Criterion Determination

A criterion may be satisfied only under conditions such as:

• defined operating range,
• limited population,
• specific system version,
• restricted environment,
• continued mitigation,
• additional monitoring,
• limited time period,
• or another governed boundary.

Conditional determination must preserve those conditions.

Mandatory Criteria

Some Validation Criteria may be designated mandatory.

Where a mandatory criterion is:

Not Satisfied

or in some validation contexts:

Not Determinable

the overall Validation Determination may be constrained regardless
of favorable results elsewhere.

The exact consequence must be established through the Validation
Criteria governance structure.

VDTS does not invent mandatory status retrospectively.

Critical Criteria

Certain criteria may be critical because failure has
disproportionate consequence.

A critical criterion should not be neutralized merely through
favorable performance across many less important criteria.

VALIDOS™ therefore rejects blind averaging where
materiality differs.

Criterion Weighting

Some validation frameworks may legitimately assign different
significance to different criteria.

Where weighting is used, VDTS requires that weighting be:

• established before outcome interpretation where reasonably possible,
• justified,
• traceable,
• methodologically relevant,
• and resistant to post-hoc manipulation.

Weighting should not be altered merely because the resulting
conclusion is inconvenient.

Aggregation Is Not Averaging

VALIDOS™ establishes:

Cross-Criterion Determination ≠ Arithmetic Average

Different criteria may represent:

• mandatory conditions,
• critical conditions,
• supporting conditions,
• independent conditions,
• hierarchical conditions,
• conditional conditions,
• or exclusionary conditions.

Aggregation must preserve their governance meaning.

Cross-Criterion Interpretation

VDTS determines how multiple criterion outcomes collectively
contribute to the overall Validation Determination.

Relevant questions may include:

• Are all mandatory criteria satisfied?
• Are any critical criteria not satisfied?
• Are material criteria not determinable?
• Do conditional outcomes restrict scope?
• Do criterion conflicts remain?
• Can partial validation be legitimately separated?
• Does one exclusionary condition override otherwise favorable findings?

Determination Hierarchy

Complex Validation Objects may require hierarchical determination.

For example:

Module Determination → Subsystem Determination →
System Determination

or:

Criterion → Criterion Group → Validation Domain →
Overall Determination

VDTS permits hierarchical structure where the relationships remain
explicit and methodologically justified.

Partial Determination

A Validation Object may support a legitimate conclusion for part of
its Validation Scope while another part remains undetermined
or fails.

Where boundaries can be reliably separated, VDTS may permit:

Partial Positive Determination

Partial Negative Determination

Partial Conditional Determination

or: Partial Indeterminate Determination

This prevents unnecessary all-or-nothing conclusions.

Determination Scope

Every Validation Determination must remain bounded to the scope
actually supported by validation.

The determination should not extend beyond:

• validated object version,
• tested population,
• evaluated environment,
• executed scenarios,
• applicable operational state,
• validated jurisdiction,
• or another material boundary.

VALIDOS™ establishes:

Determination Scope ≤ Legitimately Executed Validation Scope

Determination and Validation Depth

The strength of a determination depends partly upon the Validation
Depth achieved.

A conclusion supported by exploratory validation should not
automatically be represented as equivalent to one supported by
high-assurance validation.

VDTS therefore preserves the relationship between determination and
achieved Validation Depth.

Contradictory Findings

Different execution results may support conflicting interpretations.

VDTS requires material contradiction to remain visible.

Contradiction may arise from:

• different methods,
• different environments,
• different populations,
• different object states,
• different evidence,
• different sources,
• measurement variation,
• or genuine object instability.

Determination Conflict

A Determination Conflict exists where legitimate validation findings
support materially incompatible criterion or overall conclusions.

Conflict may require:

• additional analysis,
• additional validation,
• method comparison,
• evidence review,
• source review,
• scope separation,
• conditional determination,
• or an indeterminate result.

Conflict should not be resolved merely by selecting the
preferred outcome.

Uncertainty Integration

Validation results may contain uncertainty arising from:

• evidence,
• measurement,
• methodology,
• source conditions,
• execution,
• sampling,
• population variability,
• object behavior,
• or unresolved conflict.

VDTS integrates uncertainty into determination rather than
hiding it.

Uncertainty Does Not Automatically Block Determination

Some uncertainty is compatible with legitimate validation.

The relevant question is whether remaining uncertainty is acceptable
for the applicable Validation Criterion, Purpose, Depth, and
determination type.

VDTS therefore supports proportionate uncertainty governance.

Material Uncertainty

Where uncertainty can reasonably change the criterion or overall
conclusion, it becomes material.

Material uncertainty may require:

• conditional determination,
• indeterminate determination,
• additional validation,
• narrower scope,
• or explicit limitation.

Residual Execution Limitations

Execution may be Determination Ready while carrying
residual limitations.

VDTS must preserve these limitations when interpreting results.

A limitation cannot disappear merely because execution was allowed
to proceed.

Evidence Condition Propagation

Evidence determined: Conditionally Fit

may create corresponding limitations upon Validation Determination.

The determination should not claim more than the evidence basis
can support.

Source Condition Propagation

Similarly, Source Reliability restrictions may constrain how
evidence is interpreted.

For example:

A source usable only with corroboration cannot become the sole
unrestricted basis for a determination unless that condition was
legitimately resolved.

Determination Conditions

An overall Validation Determination may be conditional.

Conditions may include:

• restricted use,
• specific configuration,
• specific population,
• defined operating range,
• continued control,
• continued monitoring,
• limited time,
• supplementary validation,
• or another boundary.

These conditions become important inputs to Validation
State governance.

Overall Validation Determination

VDTS may establish overall determination classes such as:

Positive Validation Determination

The governed validation record sufficiently demonstrates
satisfaction of the required Validation Criteria for the defined
scope and conditions.

Conditional Validation Determination

The governed validation record supports a positive determination
only within explicit conditions, limitations, restrictions, or
reduced scope.

Negative Validation Determination

The governed validation record sufficiently demonstrates
non-satisfaction of one or more criteria whose governance
significance prevents a positive determination for the
defined scope.

Indeterminate Validation Determination

The governed validation record does not provide sufficient
legitimate basis to establish either a positive or negative
overall determination.

Partial Validation Determination Different governed portions of the
Validation Object, criteria set, or Validation Scope legitimately
support different determination outcomes.

These classifications represent the validation conclusion.

They are not yet the persistent Validation State.

Positive Determination Is Not Reliance Authorization

VALIDOS™ establishes:

Positive Validation Determination ≠ Authorization to Rely

A system may receive a positive determination while reliance remains
restricted because of:

• time,
• operational context,
• regulatory authority,
• risk,
• changed environment,
• or other governance conditions.

Reliance belongs to the tenth Parent Standard.

Negative Determination Is Not Universal Invalidity

A Negative Validation Determination applies to the Validation
Object, scope, criteria, version, and conditions actually assessed.

It should not automatically be generalized to every use or
future version.

Indeterminate Determination Is Not Failure

An Indeterminate Validation Determination means:

VALIDOS™ does not possess sufficient governed basis to establish the
required conclusion.

It does not automatically mean the object is valid.

It does not automatically mean the object is invalid.

This is a legitimate methodological outcome.

Partial Determination

A Partial Validation Determination may be necessary where:

• some criteria are satisfied,
• some criteria fail,
• some are indeterminate,
• some scope areas were not executed,
• or distinct components legitimately support different outcomes.

Partial determination should preserve those boundaries explicitly.

Determination Authority

Where formal determination requires an identifiable authority, VDTS
may govern:

• who or what may issue the determination,
• scope of determination authority,
• required independence,
• required competence,
• and authority conditions.

VDTS does not create legal or regulatory authority where
none exists.

Human Determination

A human may perform or approve a Validation Determination.

Where material, relevant considerations may include:

• competence,
• assigned authority,
• independence,
• evidence access,
• methodological understanding,
• and conflict conditions.

Automated Determination

A Validation Determination may be partially or fully automated where
governance permits.

Automated determination may require:

• deterministic rules,
• governed aggregation logic,
• explicit criterion mapping,
• controlled thresholds,
• system identity,
• versioning,
• exception handling,
• and human escalation where required.

Automation must not make determination logic opaque.

AI-Assisted Determination

AI may assist in:

• evidence synthesis,
• conflict detection,
• uncertainty identification,
• criterion mapping,
• traceability analysis,
• or determination drafting.

However, the governing determination structure must
remain reconstructable.

AI-generated reasoning should not silently replace the approved
determination logic.

Determination Traceability

A formal Validation Determination should be traceable through:

Validation Object

↓

Validation Criteria

↓

Validation Method

↓

Evidence

↓

Sources

↓

Execution Activities

↓

Execution Outputs

↓

Criterion Determinations

↓

Overall Validation Determination

This creates the conclusion chain of VALIDOS™.

Validation Determination Record

A formal Validation Determination Record may preserve:

• Determination Identifier,
• Validation Object,
• object version,
• Validation Purpose,
• actual Validation Scope,
• achieved Validation Depth,
• applicable Validation Criteria,
• criterion-level outcomes,
• mandatory criterion status,
• critical criterion status,
• execution basis,
• evidence basis,
• source conditions,
• conflicts,
• uncertainty,
• residual limitations,
• determination conditions,
• overall Validation Determination,
• determination authority where applicable,
• effective date,
• and sufficient traceability.

Determination Basis Transparency

The determination should permit a qualified reviewer to understand
why the conclusion was reached.

This does not require exposing confidential intellectual property or
unrestricted internal reasoning.

It requires sufficient methodological transparency to reconstruct
the governed basis of the conclusion.

Determination Change Governance

A Validation Determination may require reassessment when:

• execution records change,
• evidence changes,
• Source Reliability changes,
• a previously unknown deviation is discovered,
• criterion interpretation is corrected,
• methodological error is identified,
• or another material validation fact changes.

Determination Reassessment

Possible outcomes may include:

Determination Maintained

Determination Modified

Determination Restricted

Determination Suspended

Determination Reversed

or:

Determination Withdrawn

Changes should not erase the historical determination.

Determination Correction

Where a determination error is identified, the correction
should preserve:

Original Determination → Identified Error → Corrected Determination
→ Reason

This supports methodological accountability.

Determination Suspension

A determination may require temporary suspension where material
uncertainty arises but final reassessment has not yet
been completed.

Suspension prevents continued representation of a potentially
outdated conclusion as current.

Determination Withdrawal

A determination may be withdrawn where its methodological basis is
materially destroyed.

Possible triggers include:

• invalid execution,
• compromised evidence,
• major source failure,
• critical methodological error,
• wrong Validation Object,
• or another fundamental defect.

Withdrawal concerns the determination.

It does not by itself establish the object's current Validation
State after reassessment.

Determination Continuity

Validation Determinations should remain historically
connected across:

• corrections,
• revisions,
• revalidations,
• system updates,
• object versions,
• and later Validation States.

This preserves the evolution of validation knowledge rather than
presenting only the latest conclusion.

Determination Is Not Validation State

This boundary is fundamental.

Validation Determination answers:

What does this governed validation event demonstrate?

Validation State answers:

What formal validation condition does the Validation Object
currently hold after considering the applicable determination,
validity conditions, lifecycle status, and change?

The eighth and ninth Parent Standards must therefore
remain separate.

Determination Is Not Reliance

Similarly:

Validation Determination ≠ Reliance Decision

A valid determination can exist while no party is authorized to rely
upon it operationally.

Reliance depends upon:

• purpose,
• risk,
• authority,
• time,
• environment,
• conditions,
• intended use,
• and revalidation rules.

Governance Boundary

Validation Determination Standard begins when a sufficiently
complete and conformant Validation Execution Record is ready
for determination.

It ends when the governed validation record has been interpreted
into criterion-level findings and an overall Validation
Determination with explicit scope, conditions, limitations,
conflicts, uncertainty, and traceability.

VDTS does not determine:

• persistent Validation State,
• Validation State expiration,
• operational reliance authorization,
• reliance transfer,
• revalidation triggers,
• or post-determination lifecycle governance.

These responsibilities belong to subsequent VALIDOS™
Parent Standards.

Minimum Governance Requirements

A conforming implementation of VDTS should establish:

• 1. an identifiable Validation Determination Basis,
• 2. determination-ready execution,
• 3. qualified execution results,
• 4. explicit criterion-level determinations,
• 5. treatment of mandatory and critical criteria,
• 6. explicit treatment of non-determinability,
• 7. governed aggregation or cross-criterion interpretation,
• 8. contradiction and conflict handling,
• 9. uncertainty integration,

10. propagation of material evidence, source, and execution
limitations, 11. a bounded determination scope, 12. determination
conditions and restrictions, 13. an overall Validation
Determination, 14. determination traceability, 15. and a persistent
Validation Determination Record.

Governance Outputs

VDTS may produce:

• Validation Determination Basis,
• Determination-Ready Result Set,
• Validation Result Qualification Record,
• Criterion Determination Record,
• Criterion Satisfaction Map,
• Criterion Non-Satisfaction Record,
• Conditional Criterion Determination,
• Criterion Not Determinable Record,
• Mandatory Criteria Determination,
• Critical Criteria Determination,
• Determination Conflict Record,
• Validation Uncertainty Record,
• Cross-Criterion Interpretation Record,
• Determination Aggregation Record,
• Partial Determination Record,
• Determination Scope Record,
• Determination Condition Record,
• Validation Determination,
• Validation Determination Record,
• Validation Determination Traceability Map,
• Determination Reassessment Trigger,
• Determination Change Record,
• Determination Suspension Record,
• Determination Withdrawal Record,
• and Determination Continuity Reference.

Operational Applications

Validation Determination Standard may be applied across:

• artificial intelligence,
• machine learning,
• autonomous systems,
• AI-generated outputs,
• software systems,
• datasets,
• predictions,
• simulations,
• scientific validation,
• healthcare,
• financial services,
• industrial systems,
• cybersecurity,
• critical infrastructure,
• regulatory environments,
• digital identities,
• operational governance,
• public-sector systems,
• and any governed environment requiring a formal validation conclusion.

Relationship to Other OOF Architectures

Validation Determination Standard interoperates with:

• GOA™
• OBIDENITY®
• INTEGROS®
• ORA™
• AGA™
• AIG®
• CLIA®
• MGIA™
• ASGA™
• RIS™

by providing the canonical validation-governance methodology through
which the complete governed validation record is transformed into a
bounded and traceable Validation Determination.

GOA™ may provide relevant determination authority and
governance conditions.

OBIDENITY® may preserve the identity and continuity of the
Validation Object and related records.

INTEGROS® may provide integrity conditions affecting evidence,
records, and determination continuity.

ORA™ may provide operational-reality context relevant
to interpretation.

AGA™ may establish accountability for determination roles
and decisions.

RIS™ may influence the strength of determination required for
high-consequence validation.

Specialized AI, cognition, memory, and autonomous-system
architectures may provide domain-specific criteria and conditions
consumed by VDTS.

VDTS does not replace those architectures.

It governs specifically what the completed validation process can
legitimately conclude.

Foundational Principle

Validation results become a legitimate determination only when the
conclusion remains bounded by what the governed validation record
can actually demonstrate.

Canonical Closing Statement

Validation Determination Standard establishes the formal conclusion
layer of VALIDOS™ — Validation Governance Architecture by
transforming determination-ready execution results into
criterion-level and overall Validation Determinations. Through
governance of result qualification, criterion satisfaction,
non-satisfaction, conditionality, non-determinability, mandatory and
critical criteria, cross-criterion interpretation, conflict,
uncertainty, aggregation, scope, limitations, partial determination,
authority, traceability, reassessment, suspension, and withdrawal,
VDTS ensures that validation conclusions cannot exceed the
methodological strength, evidentiary basis, execution quality, or
operational boundaries of the validation process from which they
are derived.

Validation Determination Standard

Architecture: VALIDOS™ — Validation Governance Architecture
Category: AI & Interpretation · Subcategory: Validation Governance

Canonical Definition: Validation Determination Standard (VDTS)
defines the governance conditions under which the complete governed
validation record is evaluated, integrated, interpreted, bounded,
and transformed into a formal Validation Determination establishing
what the executed validation legitimately demonstrates about the
Validation Object relative to the applicable Validation Criteria,
thresholds, conditions, evidence, methodological limitations,
execution conformity, uncertainty, conflicts, and approved
Validation Scope.

Governed Space: Validation Determination

Validation results become a legitimate determination only when the
conclusion remains bounded by what the governed validation record
can actually demonstrate.

→ View Standard

→ Validation Determination Basis & Result Qualification Module (VDBRQM)

→ Validation Criterion Determination Module (VCDM)

→ Validation Determination Conflict & Uncertainty Governance Module (VDCUGM)

→ Validation Cross-Criterion Integration Module (VCCIM)

→ Overall Validation Determination Module (OVDM)

→ About Validation Determination Standard

→ VALIDOS™ Validation Governance Architecture — Validation Governance Layer