The Institute performs several functions along a single pipeline: it develops the standards, publishes the reference contracts, operates the preliminary automated review, accredits the firms that conduct review, and monitors deployments. This is a genuine concentration of functions, and the Institute discloses it rather than omit it — because the questions its audience will ask most sharply concern precisely this.
The Institute’s functions
| Function | Description |
|---|---|
| Standards | The Institute develops the criteria against which projects are assessed. |
| Reference contracts | The Institute publishes and certifies its own reference implementations. |
| Preliminary automated review | The Institute operates the advisory review engine. |
| Accreditation | The Institute accredits the advisory firms that conduct review. |
| Monitoring | The Institute monitors certified deployments for material change. |
The separations maintained
To prevent these functions from compromising one another (separations to be finalized):
- Accreditation is separated from commercial relationships. A firm’s accreditation status is determined independently of any fee, sponsorship, or partnership.
- Fees are determined independently of outcomes. No party pays for a favourable determination, and a reviewer’s remuneration does not depend upon the result.
- The automated engine does not control access to review. Its preliminary output never prevents a submission from proceeding to review by qualified persons.
- Standards-setting is insulated from funders. See the covenant against influence.
- [Further separations — to be confirmed by the Institute.]
Accountability of accredited firms
The question of primary concern to the scholarly audience is this: once a firm is accredited, by what means is it held accountable? The regime is not yet fully settled, and the Institute will not obscure that. The intended regime requires definite commitments:
- Surveillance review — periodic re-examination of accredited firms’ work, and not a single point of entry.
- Publication of revocations — where accreditation is conditioned or withdrawn, the fact is recorded on a public register.
- An appeals procedure — a defined route, for firms and for projects, to contest a decision.
- A complaints channel — a public means of raising concerns regarding an accredited firm.
- Fees determined independently of outcomes — as a structural matter, so that accountability is not undermined by incentive.
- [Accountability regime — full particulars to be confirmed by the Institute.]
Conflict-of-interest disclosure
Every committee member and every accredited firm maintains standing conflict-of-interest disclosures, refreshed per review. Disclosures will be published here as the governance bodies are constituted. See About for the bodies being constituted, and Funding and Independence for the arrangements that keep funding at arm’s length.