AICF-METH-001PUBLISHEDNORMATIVE FOR DRAFTINGHow the framework is written
This document states the rules by which every competence statement in the framework is drafted, reviewed, approved, versioned and retired. It is published so that the framework can be checked against its own method by anyone, including people who disagree with it.
Twelve sections · sections 4, 5 and 6 are cited by the build validation · version 1.29
Purpose and status of this document
This is a layer 0 document: it governs the framework rather than forming part of it. It is normative for anyone drafting or amending a statement, and informative for anyone reading one. Where this document and a statement disagree, the statement is wrong and is corrected at the next release.
It is approved by the standards board, revised only through the amendment process in section 9, and versioned alongside the framework.
How statements are drafted, reviewed and approved
The domain boundary and the competences claimed to sit inside it are written before any statement is drafted.
Statements are drafted against the nine writing rules and the controlled verb list, level by level from L1 upward.
Wording, level placement, type assignment and indicator count are checked. Rule breaches are returned with the rule number.
Two people who do the work confirm the competence exists as described and is judgeable from the indicators.
The draft is published for the window set by its change class. Every submission is answered in writing.
The board approves the release, records dissent, and the version is cut. Nothing reaches the site unapproved.
Evidence base and practitioner input
A statement is admitted when someone can point to work in which the competence is actually exercised. Four sources are used, and each drafted statement records which of them it rests on.
Structured interviews and written submissions describing work actually performed, not work aspired to.
Primary source for Skill and Judgement statements
Published role descriptions, task inventories and incident records where AI work is named.
Used to test whether a competence is general
Obligations imposed on organisations, read for the competences a person needs to discharge them.
Primary source for Practice statements
Peer-reviewed and industry work on failure modes, evaluation and system behaviour.
Used for Knowledge statements; never sufficient alone
No statement in version 1.29 rests on vendor documentation alone. Where a competence exists only because a single product behaves a certain way, it belongs in an extension or nowhere.
The nine writing rules
These rules are enforced by the build. A statement that breaks one of them does not reach the site, and a contribution that breaks one is returned with the rule number cited.
One competence per statement
A statement describes a single thing a person does. If it needs the word “and” to join two actions, it is two statements.
Opens with a controlled verb for its level
The first word is a verb from the level’s list in section 5. The verb sets the level; the level does not soften the verb.
Observable in work
A statement describes something another person could see evidence of. Internal states are prohibited under section 5.
Tool-neutral and vendor-neutral
No product, model, vendor or interface name appears in a core statement. Where the competence exists only for one product, it belongs in an extension.
Context-neutral at the core
A core statement holds in any sector. Sector-specific obligations belong in an extension; function-specific ones in an overlay.
Present tense, active voice, third person implied
The subject is the competent person. No modal verbs: “should”, “may” and “is able to” state an aspiration rather than a competence.
Two to four performance indicators, each independently assessable
Indicators are normative and state what an assessor looks for. One indicator is not a statement; five means the statement is too broad.
Assessable without a specified assessment method
The statement says what competence is, not how to test it. Methods belong to awarding bodies. Evidence examples are non-normative and clearly labelled.
No forward dependency
A statement may assume statements at the same or a lower level, never a higher one. Cross-domain relationships are declared as related, not as prerequisites.
Controlled verb lists
Every statement opens with a verb from the list for its level. This is the mechanism by which L2 in one domain means the same thing as L2 in another. The lists are closed: additions are amendments to the framework and follow the versioning policy in section 11.
These describe an internal state rather than an observable action and cannot be assessed. A statement containing one of them fails the build.
Statement schema, field by field
The published schema is the authority. This table restates it in prose.
| Field | Type | Required | Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
id | string | Yes | Matches ^(D[1-8]|O[1-3]|X-[A-Z]{3})\.L[1-4]\.\d{2}$. Canonical casing. Never reused, never re-pointed. |
statement | string | Yes | The competence text, written to the nine rules in section 4. |
domain | string | Yes | The owning unit: a domain, overlay or extension code. |
level | L1–L4 | Yes | Must agree with the level segment of the identifier. |
type | enum | Yes | Knowledge, Skill, Judgement or Practice. One value only. |
indicators | string[] | Yes | Two to four, normative. Fewer than two fails the build. |
assumes | string[] | No | Statement identifiers at the same or a lower level. Resolved as links. |
related | string[] | No | Identifiers or domain wildcards such as D2.L2.*. Rendered on both pages. |
status | enum | Yes | active, deprecated or superseded. Deprecated statements resolve permanently. |
stability | enum | Yes | stable or provisional. Provisional statements may change within a minor release. |
introduced | string | Yes | The version in which the identifier first appeared. |
supersededBy | string | No | Required when status is superseded. Must resolve to an existing identifier. |
Identifier scheme and permanence
An identifier takes the form D6.L3.04: unit, level, sequence. Units are D1–D8 for domains, O1–O3 for overlays and X-AGT style codes for extensions.
Editorial roles and who holds them
| Standards editor | Holds the writing rules. Final say on wording, level placement and type. |
|---|---|
| Domain lead | Drafts and maintains one domain. Answers submissions against it. |
| Technical reviewers | Confirm a competence exists as described and is judgeable. |
| Standards board | Approves releases and settles scope disputes. Records dissent. |
| Registrar | Cuts releases, freezes dated trees, maintains the deprecation record. |
Named holders, terms and declared interests are published on the board page.
How disagreements are resolved
Disagreement about wording is settled by the writing rules. Disagreement about whether a competence exists is settled by evidence under section 3. Only disagreement about scope reaches the board, and its decision is published with the dissent recorded.
Consultation, and how submissions are answered
Every submission receives a written response citing the rule or the evidence on which it was accepted, amended or rejected. Responses are published with the release record for the version in which the submission was considered.
Versioning policy and stability guarantees
| Change class | What it covers | Consultation minimum | Version step |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editorial | Wording clarified without changing meaning. Typography, links, non-normative examples. | None | patch |
| Additive | New statements, new indicators, new extensions or overlays. Nothing existing changes meaning. | 30 days | minor |
| Deprecating | A statement retired or superseded. The identifier resolves permanently thereafter. | 60 days | minor |
| Structural | Levels, types, domain boundaries, the schema, or this methodology. | 90 days | major |
A statement is never edited in place to mean something different. It is deprecated, and a new identifier carries the new meaning. Deprecated identifiers resolve permanently.
Known limitations of this methodology
Publishing the method invites the question of where it is weak. These are the answers we would give if asked, so we give them unasked. Each is reviewed at every release and this list is expected to change.
Level boundaries are judged, not measured
The L2/L3 boundary in particular rests on editorial judgement applied consistently rather than on external calibration.
Action: inter-rater agreement study on level placement, published with its results whatever they show.
No assessment validity evidence yet
The framework asserts that its statements are assessable. No awarding body has yet published results that would test whether they are.
Action: publish validity findings from the first credentials, including negative findings.
The subject matter moves faster than the release cycle
A consultation window is slow relative to changes in the systems the framework describes. This is a deliberate trade against churn in citable identifiers.
Action: provisional stability marking, reviewed at each release.
English-language drafting only
The controlled verb lists are English and carry connotations that will not survive translation cleanly.
Action: translation policy published before any non-English edition.