Choice, consent, recourse
Human Agency
Example evidence could include policy records, user research, lifecycle documentation, incident reviews, and external audit findings relevant to this dimension.
Framework
A practical model for assessing intelligent ecosystem health.
A practical assessment model for evaluating the health, accountability, and public value of intelligent systems.
Meta-Framework Position
The Framework integrates existing governance, safety, ethics, systems, and standards approaches at the ecosystem level.
Publication #001 clarifies that the Framework should not replace NIST, ISO, OECD, UNESCO, legal, documentation, identity, or safety approaches. Its role is to connect them where intelligent systems interact across people, institutions, infrastructure, markets, and environments.
10 Dimensions
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Dimension 01
Human Agency
People can understand, contest, override, and shape the systems that affect them.
Dimension 02
Ecological Impact
Resource use, energy demand, supply chains, and environmental effects are measured and reduced.
Dimension 03
Accountability
Responsibility is assigned across owners, builders, deployers, and governing bodies.
Dimension 04
Explainability
System behavior can be described in language appropriate to affected people and technical reviewers.
Dimension 05
Equity
Benefits, burdens, access, and failure modes are assessed across communities and contexts.
Dimension 06
Security
The ecosystem resists misuse, extraction, manipulation, and brittle dependencies.
Dimension 07
Knowledge Integrity
Information sources, uncertainty, provenance, and limitations are visible and maintained.
Dimension 08
Participation
Affected communities have meaningful channels for input, review, and shared governance.
Dimension 09
Interoperability
Systems use open interfaces and portable records so communities are not trapped by vendors.
Dimension 10
Long-Term Stewardship
Institutions plan for maintenance, monitoring, harms, succession, and future generations.
The Intelligent Ecosystem Framework
The Framework gives communities, institutions, builders, and reviewers a common language for evaluating intelligent systems.
It treats every system as part of a wider ecosystem: people, data, incentives, infrastructure, laws, environments, institutions, and cultural practices.
Assessment Principle
The central question is not whether a system is advanced. The central question is whether it improves the conditions of life while remaining accountable to those affected by it.
Scoring Method
Each dimension receives a 0-100 score based on public evidence, independent review, stakeholder participation, and measurable outcomes.
Scores should be understood as structured judgments, not as false precision. The purpose is to make assumptions visible, identify gaps, and guide improvement.
Evidence Standard
Evidence should include system documentation, user research, environmental data, impact assessments, incident reports, governance records, and community feedback.
Review Cycle
Assessments should be revisited whenever a system changes materially, enters a new context, causes a significant incident, or reaches a scheduled review date.
Scoring Methodology
Scores are evidence-backed judgments, not decorative numbers.
Each score should show the evidence used, the confidence level, unresolved questions, and the next improvement commitment.
Dormant
0-24The system has no visible stewardship model or reliable public evidence.
Emergent
25-49Basic practices exist, but coverage is uneven and difficult to verify.
Viable
50-74The system meets baseline expectations and has active review loops.
Regenerative
75-100The system improves human and ecological conditions over time.
Assessment Model
The assessment translates values into reviewable practice.
A complete review combines scoring, narrative judgment, evidence quality, risk status, and commitments.
1
Collect evidence
2
Score dimensions
3
Document uncertainty
4
Publish improvements
Examples
How a review might interpret dimension signals.
Energy, materials, biodiversity
Ecological Impact
Example evidence could include policy records, user research, lifecycle documentation, incident reviews, and external audit findings relevant to this dimension.
Audit trails, ownership, escalation
Accountability
Example evidence could include policy records, user research, lifecycle documentation, incident reviews, and external audit findings relevant to this dimension.
Reasons, documentation, model cards
Explainability
Example evidence could include policy records, user research, lifecycle documentation, incident reviews, and external audit findings relevant to this dimension.