IAS may
Structure institutional review
- Define acceptance criteria
- Map reviewer routes
- Record assurance procedures
- Preserve reliance limitations
- Register institutional outcomes
IAS is how institutions safely rely on Terra Vita evidence without taking on Terra Vita’s authority.
Institutional acceptance · reliance · interoperability
Institutional Assurance Spine
IAS is the controlled interface where institutions assess, accept, condition or reject Terra Vita evidence outputs. It governs reliance without transferring authority.
0
Canonical reviewer route
Institutional context first
Receiving institution · mandate · acceptance profile · reviewer route · reliance conditions · decision authority.
Institutional context
The protected acceptance layer above Terra Vita’s governed evidence system.
The Institutional Assurance Spine governs how evidence maturity, attribution, assurance, project authority and capital-flow readiness are presented for external institutional review. It is protected because reviewer routes, reliance conditions, acceptance records and institutional outcomes must remain controlled, attributable and auditable. IAS attaches directly to the Governance Spine: the Governance Spine governs the evidence chain, while IAS governs the conditions under which an authorised institution may review and rely on its outputs.
Why IAS exists
Evidence alone is insufficient for institutional acceptance. IAS provides the governance architecture that makes evidence decision-grade by resolving authority, reviewer route, assurance scope, reliance conditions and institutional accountability without transferring decision authority to Terra Vita.
For institutions
Engage with IAS in four controlled steps
The public architecture explains the method. The protected operational registry contains institution profiles, reviewer actions, evidence references, reliance conditions and decision records.
- 01Request accessIdentify the receiving institution and review purpose.
- 02Define the acceptance profileSet criteria, mandate, evidence period and authority boundary.
- 03Assign the reviewer routeAppoint reviewers and complete Step 0–6 with recorded evidence.
- 04Receive controlled outputsAccept, condition, reject or return the package under the institution’s own mandate.
IAS may not
Exercise institutional authority
- Approve projects or capital
- Certify regulatory compliance
- Issue ratings or investment advice
- Replace statutory or fiduciary review
- Convert readiness into acceptance
Ecosystem position
IAS → Governance Spine integration
IAS governs institutional acceptance of module outputs. It does not recreate module logic.
01Module outputEvidence or governed result
02Governance registrationIdentity · attribution · version · authority
03IAS profile appliedCriteria · route · protocol · reliance
04Institutional determinationAccepted · conditioned · rejected · remediated
Default programme entry
One governed structure for every future project and programme
Each new Terra Vita case begins with a programme-authority profile and a separate IAS-0 acceptance review. The programme code links the Hub, FieldTrace, Capital-Flow Readiness, Project Authority Lock, Funding Spine, assurance and controlled-release records without duplicating the underlying evidence.
Canonical sequence
Reviewer route specification
No route may proceed without an identified institution, mandate, decision authority and applicable acceptance profile.
0IAS contextInstitution · mandate · authority
→
1EvidenceMaturity and control
→
2AttributionActor and responsibility
→
3AssuranceProtocol and reviewer
→
4Capital readinessConditions and blockers
→
5Authority lockEntity and mandate
→
6Module evidenceTechnical requirements
Step 0 fixes the institutional context before any evidence is assessed. Each subsequent step preserves the authority boundary and produces a controlled review object.
Entry lock
Institution · mandate · purpose · authority · reviewer · evidence period
Failure lock
Undefined authority · disputed mandate · absent independence · unresolved access
Entry-lock rule: all six fields must be resolved before assessment begins. Any unresolved field triggers the failure lock and halts the review sequence.
Eight controlled domains
Institutional acceptance criteria
| Domain | Minimum threshold | Failure condition | Controlled output |
|---|
Versioned control set
Assurance protocols
Every protocol carries a purpose, bounded procedures, reviewer role, output and authority boundary.
Institution-specific mapping
Institutional interoperability
Compatibility does not imply equivalence, accreditation, endorsement or formal recognition.
Controlled release families
IAS outputs
Reviewer-grade · version-controlled · authority-bounded · reconstructable.
IAS outputs are reviewer-grade, version-controlled, authority-bounded and reconstructable. Each output remains linked to its source evidence, applicable protocol, reviewer role, reliance conditions and release record.
Format examples
What controlled IAS outputs look like
These skeletons show the minimum structure. The protected registry supplies the programme-specific evidence references, reviewer findings and release controls.
IAS-OUTEvidence Maturity Record
- Subject
- Programme · evidence period · evidence set
- Provenance
- Source · owner · method · collection date
- Integrity
- Version · alteration history · retention status
- Reviewer finding
- Sufficient · conditional · insufficient
- Open gaps
- Material exceptions and remediation owner
IAS-OUTCapital Reliance Statement
- Decision context
- Instrument · purpose · receiving institution
- Readiness basis
- Gate results · evidence sufficiency · blockers
- Reliance scope
- Permitted use · conditions · expiry
- Authority
- Project authority · release authority · final decision-maker
- Prohibited use
- No funding approval, rating or investment recommendation
IAS-OUTAuthority Boundary Lock
- Terra Vita role
- Evidence governance and review structure
- Project authority
- Entity · signatory · site or asset mandate
- Reviewer authority
- Scope · competence · independence
- Institutional authority
- Approval · regulatory · fiduciary · capital decision
- Escalation
- Conflict, expiry or unresolved delegation route
Release condition
No external reliance package may be issued without an authorised release, active authority boundary, audit event and stated reliance conditions.
Ecosystem coverage
Module acceptance governance
IAS references and governs released module outputs. It does not absorb operational functions.
Worked example
FieldTrace evidence to institutional determination
A concrete example of how IAS governs a module output without copying, altering or approving the underlying evidence.
A field officer submits a geolocated observation, operator identity, timestamp, media file and task reference.
Source object remains in FieldTrace.The Hub registers evidence identity, provenance, attribution, version, supervisory review and any exception.
Governed evidence reference is created.The receiving institution’s acceptance criteria, reviewer route, assurance protocol and reliance conditions are applied.
IAS references the evidence; it does not duplicate it.The authorised institution may rely, condition, reject or return the output for remediation under its own mandate.
Only the institution records IAS-5 or IAS-6.Reliance classification
Authority and acceptance status
IAS-5 and IAS-6 require an authorised institutional decision record.
Assessment not complete
Insufficient or withdrawn
Reviewable or submitted
Reliance subject to conditions
Institutionally accepted
Status control
How a review moves through IAS classifications
Status movement is never self-promotional. IAS-0 to IAS-4 are controlled workflow determinations made through recorded human review. IAS-5 and IAS-6 belong exclusively to the receiving institution.
Institution, mandate, purpose, authority, reviewer and evidence period are resolved.
Missing authority, evidence or assurance sends the case to remediation.
A human reviewer confirms the package can enter structured assessment.
Step 0–6 is complete, criteria are satisfied, material blockers are resolved, authority is locked and reliance conditions are recorded.
The package is formally released to an authorised receiving institution.
The receiving institution accepts with conditions or accepts under its own mandate.
Institutional disagreement overrides no record: an institution may reject an IAS-3 package, apply stricter criteria or return it for remediation. IAS-3 is a bounded readiness determination, not a binding acceptance decision.
Institutional questions
What receiving institutions usually ask
Who defines acceptance criteria?
Terra Vita maintains the controlled baseline. The receiving institution defines or approves its mandate-specific acceptance profile. Institution-specific criteria are recorded separately and take precedence for that institution’s determination.
What happens when an institution disagrees with IAS-3?
The disagreement is recorded as an exception, additional criterion or remediation requirement. The institution may reject the package or require a revised review. IAS cannot compel reliance.
Can the reviewer route be audited independently?
Yes. The route preserves reviewer identity, evidence references, procedures, exceptions, versions, release events and audit history so an authorised independent party can reconstruct the review.
How are conflicting multi-institution criteria handled?
Each institution receives its own acceptance profile, reviewer route and outcome. IAS does not collapse conflicting criteria into a single lowest-common-denominator status; crosswalks identify common and divergent requirements.
IAS
Canonical position
Controlled continuity from evidence source to authorised institutional decision.
Evidence→Actor→Authority→Reviewer route→Acceptance criteria→Institutional outcome
Audit continuity
Version and change control
Version, release date, materiality, affected criteria or protocols, migration impact and review requirement are recorded.
An IAS-5 or IAS-6 outcome remains scoped to the exact version, evidence set and protocol reviewed by the institution.
When criteria, protocols or authority rules change materially, active accepted reviews receive a change notice and must be acknowledged or reassessed.
A new IAS version does not silently rewrite an existing institutional outcome. The receiving institution determines whether continued reliance, conditions or re-review are required.