VQM — Value Qualification Module
Architecture: VEGA™ — Value Execution Governance Architecture
Parent Standard: Value Governance Standard (VGS™)
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Value Execution Governance
Type: Core Module
Governed Space: Value Qualification
Module ID: VEGA-VGS-VQM-001
Origin ID: OOF.CM.VEGA.01.03.01
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Standard
Effective Date: 27 September 2026
Compatibility: OOF® Methodology OS™ · Modular OOF® Architecture Ecosystem
AI-Readable: Yes
Authority: OOF® — OriginOpen® Foundation
Protection: MIP® — Methodological Intellectual Property
Canonical Language: English (UCL™)
1. Canonical Definition
The Value Qualification Module (VQM) governs whether a defined and classified Value claim possesses a sufficiently coherent, relevant, bounded, measurable or assessable, evidence-addressable, and decision-relevant basis to proceed into Value Validation.
VQM evaluates whether the Value Object, Objective, beneficiary, classification, reference condition, Scope, measurement basis, evidence pathway, materiality basis, dependencies, assumptions, uncertainty, and intended governance use are sufficiently established for meaningful validation.
VQM prevents vague, immaterial, methodologically incoherent, non-comparable, unsupported, or decision-irrelevant Value claims from entering validation as though they were already legitimate candidates for governed Value.
Qualification does not establish that Value exists.
It establishes whether the Value claim is sufficiently formed to be evaluated.
Its principal output is:
Governed Value Qualification State
Its foundational distinction is:
Qualified Value Claim ≠ Validated Value.
2. Operational Role
The operational role of VQM is:
to determine whether a defined and classified Value claim is sufficiently complete, relevant, assessable, and evidence-addressable to justify formal Value Validation.
VQM acts as the methodological readiness gate between Value Classification and Value Validation.
3. Position in the VGS™ Internal Flow
The VGS™ internal module progression is:
Value Definition → Value Classification → Value Qualification → Value Validation → Value Threshold
VQM governs:
Value Qualification
Its principal input is:
Governed Value Classification
together with the underlying:
Governed Value Definition
Its principal output is:
Governed Value Qualification State
The output proceeds, where sufficiently qualified, to:
VVM — Value Validation Module
4. Central Operational Question
Is this Value claim sufficiently defined, relevant, bounded, assessable, evidence-addressable, and decision- relevant to justify Value Validation?
5. Qualification Object
Every qualification assessment should identify the exact Value claim being qualified.
Where one Value Object contains materially distinct Value components, qualification may need to occur separately for each component.
Therefore:
One Value Object ≠ One Qualification State by default.
6. Qualification Basis
A Value claim should possess a sufficient Qualification Basis.
The Qualification Basis may include:
the Governed Value Definition,
the Governed Value Classification,
the intended outcome,
beneficiary,
reference condition,
Scope,
measurement basis,
available or obtainable evidence,
material dependencies,
assumptions,
uncertainty,
and intended governance use.
Qualification should not be based merely on the desirability of the claimed result.
7. Definition Sufficiency
The underlying Value definition should be sufficiently complete to support meaningful evaluation.
Where the Value Object, Objective, beneficiary, Scope, or intended outcome remains materially ambiguous, qualification should remain incomplete.
Therefore:
Named Benefit ≠ Sufficiently Defined Value.
8. Classification Sufficiency
The applicable Value classification should be sufficiently established to determine how the claim should be evaluated.
Material classification uncertainty should remain visible.
A claim should not be forced into an inappropriate class merely to enable measurement.
Therefore:
Available Classification ≠ Appropriate Classification.
9. Relevance
The claimed Value should possess a defensible relationship to the relevant operational, strategic, research, or other governed objective.
A measurable outcome that does not materially relate to the objective should not qualify merely because data exists.
Therefore:
Measurable Outcome ≠ Relevant Value.
10. Beneficiary Relevance
Where the Value claim depends upon benefit to a defined beneficiary, the relationship between the outcome and that beneficiary should be sufficiently plausible and governable.
An effect experienced by one party should not automatically be represented as Value for another.
Therefore:
Observed Effect ≠ Beneficiary Value by default.
11. Scope Sufficiency
The Value claim should possess a Scope sufficiently bounded for meaningful evaluation.
The Scope should identify, where relevant:
task,
process,
system,
organization,
population,
environment,
deployment,
period,
or another applicable boundary.
An unbounded Value claim should not proceed as though its applicability were universal.
12. Reference Sufficiency
Where the Value claim depends upon comparison, the applicable reference condition should be sufficiently established.
The reference should be relevant to the claim and sufficiently comparable for the intended use.
Therefore:
Reference Availability ≠ Reference Suitability.
13. Baseline Suitability
Where a baseline is required, VQM should assess whether the selected baseline is methodologically suitable.
Relevant considerations may include:
task equivalence,
operating conditions,
quality requirements,
measurement period,
population,
human involvement,
system boundary,
and other material conditions.
A favorable but inappropriate baseline should not qualify the Value claim.
14. Baseline Integrity
The baseline should not be artificially weakened, selectively bounded, or otherwise structured primarily to increase apparent Value.
Therefore:
Favorable Baseline ≠ Legitimate Baseline.
Where baseline integrity cannot be sufficiently established, qualification should remain limited or unresolved.
15. Assessment Readiness
A Value claim should be sufficiently structured to permit meaningful assessment.
Assessment readiness may require:
defined criteria,
observable indicators,
an evidence pathway,
a comparison basis,
a measurement or assessment method,
and sufficiently explicit boundaries.
Therefore:
Defined Value ≠ Assessment-Ready Value by default.
16. Measurement Readiness
Where quantitative measurement is appropriate, the Value claim should identify what can be measured and how that measurement relates to the claimed Value.
The existence of a convenient metric does not establish measurement readiness.
Therefore:
Available Metric ≠ Appropriate Value Measure.
17. Qualitative Assessability
Not all legitimate Value requires numerical measurement.
Where qualitative assessment is appropriate, the assessment method, criteria, evidence basis, and decision relevance should still be sufficiently explicit.
Therefore:
Non-Quantitative Value ≠ Non-Assessable Value.
18. Evidence Addressability
Qualification should determine whether evidence capable of supporting or challenging the Value claim exists or can reasonably be obtained.
A Value claim may be conceptually coherent yet presently lack an adequate evidence pathway.
Such a claim should not automatically proceed as fully qualified.
Therefore:
Plausible Value ≠ Evidence-Addressable Value.
19. Evidence Availability vs Evidence Sufficiency
VQM may consider whether relevant evidence exists.
It does not determine final evidentiary sufficiency for Value Validation.
Therefore:
Evidence Available ≠ Evidence Sufficient.
Final validation belongs to VVM.
20. Materiality
The claimed Value should be sufficiently material for the governance purpose for which it is being evaluated.
A statistically detectable, technically measurable, or operationally observable difference may still be too small to matter to the intended decision.
Therefore:
Observable Difference ≠ Material Value.
21. Decision Relevance
A qualified Value claim should possess a meaningful relationship to an intended governance decision or evaluation.
The intended use may include:
investment assessment,
execution evaluation,
deployment evaluation,
optimization,
continuation,
scaling,
migration,
retirement,
or another defined purpose.
Value that is real but irrelevant to the decision should not automatically receive the same weight as decision-relevant Value.
22. Decision Relevance vs Decision Authority
A Value claim may be relevant to a decision without determining that decision.
Therefore:
Decision-Relevant Value ≠ Decision Authority.
VQM establishes relevance.
It does not authorize execution or determine lifecycle action.
23. Dependency Qualification
Where Value depends upon another event, system, capability, condition, or downstream outcome, that dependency should be sufficiently explicit.
The qualification assessment should distinguish:
directly supportable Value,
conditionally supportable Value,
and Value whose realization depends upon unresolved future conditions.
Therefore:
Dependent Value ≠ Unconditional Value.
24. Assumption Governance
Material assumptions supporting a Value claim should remain explicit.
Assumptions may concern:
future adoption,
system availability,
human behavior,
market conditions,
deployment scale,
quality,
technical capability,
downstream execution,
or another relevant condition.
An assumption should not be silently represented as an observed fact.
Therefore:
Assumption ≠ Evidence.
25. Uncertainty Qualification
Uncertainty does not automatically disqualify a Value claim.
VQM should determine whether the uncertainty is sufficiently understood and bounded for meaningful validation.
Where uncertainty is too large or poorly characterized, the claim may remain conditionally qualified, partially qualified, or unqualified.
Therefore:
Uncertainty ≠ Automatic Disqualification.
26. Quality Relevance
Where Value depends upon output quality, the applicable quality condition should be explicit.
Gross output should not qualify as Value where acceptance, accuracy, reliability, completeness, or another quality condition materially determines usefulness.
Therefore:
Produced Output ≠ Qualified Value Outcome.
27. Hidden Contribution
Where the apparent Value depends materially upon human intervention, correction, supervision, maintenance, external systems, or another hidden contribution, that dependency should be represented.
Qualification should not proceed on the false assumption that the intelligence execution independently produced the complete outcome.
Therefore:
Visible System Output ≠ Independent System Value by default.
28. Failure and Correction Relevance
Where failures, rejected outputs, correction work, rework, or exception handling materially affect the Value claim, they should remain visible during qualification.
A claim based only on successful outputs may be methodologically incomplete.
Therefore:
Successful Output Sample ≠ Complete Value Basis by default.
29. Value Boundary Integrity
The Value boundary should include the material elements necessary to understand the claim while excluding unrelated effects.
A boundary that excludes necessary supporting work may overstate Value.
A boundary that absorbs unrelated outcomes may also distort Value.
Therefore:
Convenient Value Boundary ≠ Legitimate Value Boundary.
30. Double-Counting Risk
VQM should identify whether the same underlying benefit may be represented through multiple Value claims.
Potential overlap should be resolved or explicitly preserved before validation.
Therefore:
Multiple Value Claims ≠ Multiple Independent Benefits.
31. Conflict Qualification
A Value claim may coexist with another Value dimension that moves in the opposite direction.
For example:
throughput may improve while quality declines;
cost may decline while correction work increases;
speed may improve while reliability falls.
Material conflicts should remain explicit.
Therefore:
Positive Value Dimension ≠ Positive Overall Value by default.
32. Temporal Qualification
The time horizon of the claim should be appropriate to the Value being assessed.
Short-term evidence should not automatically qualify a claim of persistent or long-term Value.
Likewise, deferred Value should not be disqualified merely because immediate realization is absent.
Therefore:
Short-Term Observation ≠ Long-Term Value Evidence by default.
33. Strategic and Research Qualification
Strategic Capability Value and Frontier Research Value should not be forced into immediate operational or financial qualification criteria.
Their Qualification Basis may instead depend upon:
capability creation,
learning,
research progress,
milestones,
knowledge production,
future option creation,
or another legitimate basis.
However:
Strategic Label ≠ Automatic Qualification.
Research Label ≠ Automatic Qualification.
34. Qualification State
VQM may represent Value Qualification States such as:
Not Assessed,
Incomplete,
Unqualified,
Partially Qualified,
Conditionally Qualified,
Qualified,
Qualification Pending,
Unknown,
Uncertain,
Disputed,
Reassessment Required,
or another explicitly governed state.
These are methodological governance states.
They do not establish Value Validation.
35. Conditional Qualification
A Value claim may proceed conditionally where specified unresolved elements do not prevent meaningful validation but must remain explicit.
Conditional qualification should identify:
the unresolved condition,
its relevance,
the evidence required,
and the consequence if the condition is not satisfied.
Therefore:
Conditional Qualification ≠ Full Qualification.
36. Qualification Failure
A Value claim may fail qualification where material deficiencies prevent meaningful validation.
Potential causes include:
undefined Value Object,
ambiguous beneficiary,
inappropriate classification,
invalid comparison basis,
unbounded Scope,
missing assessment criteria,
absence of an evidence pathway,
immateriality,
or unresolved methodological contradiction.
Qualification failure should identify why the claim cannot yet proceed.
37. Qualification Remediation
An unqualified claim may become qualified after material deficiencies are corrected.
Remediation may involve:
refining the Value definition,
changing the baseline,
clarifying Scope,
identifying evidence,
resolving overlap,
defining assessment criteria,
or another appropriate action.
Therefore:
Qualification Failure ≠ Permanent Value Rejection.
38. Qualification Reassessment
A previously qualified Value claim may require reassessment when its defining conditions materially change.
Potential triggers include:
changed Value definition,
changed classification,
changed baseline,
changed beneficiary,
changed Scope,
new dependencies,
new evidence,
changed operating conditions,
or changed intended use.
Therefore:
Prior Qualification ≠ Permanent Qualification.
39. Qualification Provenance
The Qualification State should remain traceable to:
the Value definition,
classification,
reference basis,
assessment criteria,
material assumptions,
dependencies,
identified gaps,
and qualification rationale.
A Qualification State without sufficient provenance should not be treated as equivalent to a reconstructable governed qualification.
40. Anti-Gaming Qualification Rule
Qualification should resist attempts to make a Value claim appear validation-ready through:
selective baselines,
selective beneficiaries,
narrow measurement windows,
excluded failures,
hidden supporting labour,
inappropriate metrics,
omitted dependencies,
or unsupported assumptions.
The governing principle is:
Qualification should test whether a Value claim is ready to be challenged, not whether it has been presented persuasively.
41. Governed Value Qualification State
The principal output of VQM is:
Governed Value Qualification State
It should identify, where applicable:
Value Object,
Value classification,
qualification Basis,
beneficiary relevance,
Scope sufficiency,
reference suitability,
baseline suitability,
assessment readiness,
measurement readiness,
evidence addressability,
materiality,
decision relevance,
dependencies,
assumptions,
quality conditions,
hidden contributions,
Value conflicts,
double-counting risk,
temporal suitability,
uncertainty,
identified qualification gaps,
Qualification State,
conditions,
remediation requirements,
reassessment triggers,
rationale,
and provenance.
42. Meaning of the Output
A Governed Value Qualification State means that the Value claim has been assessed for readiness to enter Value Validation.
A Qualified state means the claim is sufficiently structured for validation.
It does not mean:
the Value occurred,
the Value is true,
the evidence is sufficient,
the Value magnitude is correct,
the Value has been validated,
a Value Threshold has been satisfied,
resources were justified,
or a lifecycle decision has been authorized.
43. Minimum Implementation Framework
A conforming implementation of VQM must provide exactly the following six capabilities:
1. Definition & Classification Sufficiency Assessment
Capability to assess whether the Value Object, Objective, beneficiary, Scope, and Value classification are sufficiently established for meaningful evaluation.
2. Reference, Baseline & Assessment-Readiness Governance
Capability to assess reference suitability, baseline comparability, assessment criteria, measurement readiness, and qualitative assessability where applicable.
3. Evidence-Addressability & Materiality Governance
Capability to determine whether the claim has a viable evidence pathway and whether the claimed effect is materially relevant to the intended governance purpose.
4. Dependency, Assumption, Quality & Boundary Governance
Capability to identify material dependencies, assumptions, quality conditions, hidden contributions, failures, corrections, and Value-boundary limitations.
5. Conflict, Uncertainty & Qualification-State Governance
Capability to preserve conflicts, double-counting risk, uncertainty, conditional qualification, qualification failure, remediation, and reassessment requirements.
6. VGS™ Validation Handoff Governance
Capability to produce a Governed Value Qualification State sufficiently explicit, traceable, and evidence-addressable for Value Validation governance.
44. Governance Logic
The canonical VQM governance logic is:
Governed Value Definition + Governed Value Classification
↓
Identify Qualification Object
↓
Assess Definition Sufficiency
↓
Assess Classification Sufficiency
↓
Assess Beneficiary & Scope Relevance
↓
Assess Reference / Baseline Suitability
↓
Assess Measurement / Assessment Readiness
↓
Assess Evidence Addressability
↓
Assess Materiality & Decision Relevance
↓
Identify Dependencies / Assumptions
↓
Assess Quality / Hidden Contribution / Failure Effects
↓
Assess Boundary Integrity
↓
Identify Conflicts / Double Counting
↓
Represent Uncertainty
↓
Identify Qualification Gaps
↓
Establish Qualification State
↓
Governed Value Qualification State
↓
Handoff to Value Validation Governance
45. Governance Outputs
VQM may produce:
Value Qualification Basis
Definition Sufficiency State
Classification Sufficiency State
Beneficiary Relevance State
Scope Sufficiency State
Reference Suitability State
Baseline Suitability State
Assessment Readiness State
Measurement Readiness State
Evidence Addressability State
Value Materiality State
Decision Relevance State
Value Dependency Record
Value Assumption Record
Quality Condition Record
Hidden Contribution Record
Value Boundary Assessment
Double-Counting Risk Record
Value Conflict Record
Value Qualification Gap Record
Value Qualification Condition
Qualification Remediation Requirement
Qualification Reassessment Trigger
Value Qualification Rationale
Value Qualification Provenance
The principal output is:
Governed Value Qualification State
46. Critical Distinctions
VQM preserves the following distinctions:
Qualified Value Claim ≠ Validated Value
One Value Object ≠ One Qualification State by default
Named Benefit ≠ Sufficiently Defined Value
Available Classification ≠ Appropriate Classification
Measurable Outcome ≠ Relevant Value
Observed Effect ≠ Beneficiary Value by default
Reference Availability ≠ Reference Suitability
Favorable Baseline ≠ Legitimate Baseline
Defined Value ≠ Assessment-Ready Value by default
Available Metric ≠ Appropriate Value Measure
Non-Quantitative Value ≠ Non-Assessable Value
Plausible Value ≠ Evidence-Addressable Value
Evidence Available ≠ Evidence Sufficient
Observable Difference ≠ Material Value
Decision-Relevant Value ≠ Decision Authority
Dependent Value ≠ Unconditional Value
Assumption ≠ Evidence
Uncertainty ≠ Automatic Disqualification
Produced Output ≠ Qualified Value Outcome
Visible System Output ≠ Independent System Value by default
Successful Output Sample ≠ Complete Value Basis by default
Convenient Value Boundary ≠ Legitimate Value Boundary
Multiple Value Claims ≠ Multiple Independent Benefits
Positive Value Dimension ≠ Positive Overall Value by default
Short-Term Observation ≠ Long-Term Value Evidence by default
Strategic Label ≠ Automatic Qualification
Research Label ≠ Automatic Qualification
Conditional Qualification ≠ Full Qualification
Qualification Failure ≠ Permanent Value Rejection
Prior Qualification ≠ Permanent Qualification
47. Cross-Architecture Boundary
VQM governs Value Qualification within VGS™.
ORA™ may establish Operational Reality relevant to the claim.
ADIT® may provide evidence availability, provenance, and auditability.
VALIDOS™ governs validation methodology and may later determine whether relevant evidence is sufficiently validated.
SIMULOS® may provide governed simulation outputs relevant to prospective or conditional Value.
HAGA™ governs Harm independently from Value Qualification.
LIGA™ governs Liability independently.
OBIDENITY® may provide identity, authority, provenance, or ownership inputs relevant to the Value claim.
VFM® governs Value Flow rather than Value Qualification.
Within VEGA™, IPS™ governs productivity, RGS™ resources, COS™ computational optimization, IES™ economics, SVGS™ strategic Value governance, ISS™ sustainability, VAS™ attribution, and DGS™ lifecycle decisions.
These governance spaces may supply relevant context.
They do not replace VQM qualification.
The canonical interoperability principle is:
External governance may establish facts, evidence, constraints, or dependencies relevant to a Value claim; VQM determines whether that claim is sufficiently formed and assessable to enter Value Validation.
48. Canonical Boundary
VQM begins when a:
Governed Value Definition
and:
Governed Value Classification
require assessment for validation readiness.
VQM governs:
definition sufficiency,
classification sufficiency,
beneficiary relevance,
Scope sufficiency,
reference suitability,
baseline suitability,
assessment readiness,
measurement readiness,
qualitative assessability,
evidence addressability,
materiality,
decision relevance,
dependencies,
assumptions,
uncertainty,
quality conditions,
hidden contributions,
failure relevance,
Value-boundary integrity,
double-counting risk,
Value conflicts,
temporal suitability,
qualification states,
conditional qualification,
qualification gaps,
remediation,
reassessment,
rationale,
and provenance.
VQM does not independently establish:
that Value occurred,
final evidentiary sufficiency,
Value Validation,
Value Threshold satisfaction,
productivity,
resource justification,
computational efficiency,
economic return,
Value Attribution,
or lifecycle decisions.
VQM ends when the applicable Value claim is sufficiently represented as a:
Governed Value Qualification State
for Value Validation governance.
49. Use Case 1 — AI Cost-Saving Claim Uses an Invalid Baseline
An organization claims that an AI workflow creates substantial Value because its estimated cost per task is lower than the previous process.
VQM identifies that the comparison excludes human correction, exception handling, and quality-control work required by the AI workflow.
The available baseline and comparison boundary are therefore not sufficiently comparable.
The Value claim does not proceed as fully qualified merely because a cost reduction can be calculated.
The qualification state identifies the missing elements required for remediation before validation.
Favorable Baseline ≠ Legitimate Baseline.
50. Use Case 2 — Strategic AI Capability Has No Immediate Revenue
An organization develops a reusable intelligence capability intended to support several future operational systems.
Immediate revenue does not yet exist.
VQM does not reject the claim merely because short-term financial measurement is unavailable.
Instead, it evaluates whether the Strategic Capability Value has:
a defined objective,
a legitimate beneficiary,
an appropriate Scope,
observable capability criteria,
an evidence pathway,
material milestones,
explicit dependencies,
and sufficient decision relevance.
If these conditions are sufficiently established, the claim may proceed to validation as Strategic Capability Value.
Absence of Immediate Revenue ≠ Absence of Qualifiable Value.
51. Canonical Closing Statement
A Value claim should not enter validation merely because it sounds beneficial, can be measured, or supports a desired decision.
It must first be sufficiently defined.
Its classification must be appropriate.
Its beneficiary and Scope must be clear.
Its reference must be legitimate.
Its evidence pathway must exist.
Its dependencies, assumptions, uncertainty, quality conditions, and material conflicts must remain visible.
Qualification does not prove Value.
It determines whether the Value claim is ready to be tested.
Qualified Value Claim ≠ Validated Value.
Only a Value claim that can be meaningfully challenged should proceed to Value Validation.