These answers define who controls acceptance, how disagreement is handled, and what institutions may independently verify.

Institutional FAQ

Governance positions institutions should not have to infer

IAS structures evidence for institutional review. It does not transfer, dilute or replace the receiving institution’s mandate, decision authority or duty of care.

Acceptance ownership

Who defines the acceptance criteria?

Terra Vita provides the governed baseline criteria, control definitions and minimum evidence architecture. The receiving institution defines or confirms its mandate-specific acceptance profile, reliance thresholds, additional evidence requirements and decision conditions.

Institution-specific criteria take precedence for that institution’s determination. Terra Vita may identify a conflict, map a requirement or record a gap, but it cannot lower, waive or override the institution’s criteria.

Reviewer disagreement

What happens when an institution disagrees with IAS-3?

IAS-3 means a human reviewer has determined that the governed package supports bounded reliance under recorded conditions. It is not institutional approval and does not compel reliance.

The receiving institution may reject the determination, apply stricter criteria, require additional assurance, record an exception, return the case for remediation or classify the package differently. Its position remains controlling for its decision.

Independent reconstruction

Can the reviewer route be audited independently?

Yes, subject to authorised access, confidentiality, data-protection and legal constraints. The route preserves reviewer identity, evidence references, protocol versions, procedures, findings, exceptions, authority boundaries, releases and audit events.

An authorised independent party can reconstruct and challenge the route. Independent review does not permit silent alteration of the source evidence, original reviewer record or institutional outcome.

Multi-institution review

How are conflicting requirements from multiple institutions handled?

Each institution receives a separate acceptance profile, reviewer route, reliance conditions and outcome linked to the same governed evidence base. IAS preserves conflicts rather than forcing a lowest-common-denominator standard.

Crosswalks may show common requirements and divergences, but one institution’s acceptance does not bind another institution. Each institution acts under its own mandate.

Version continuity

What happens when IAS criteria or protocols change?

Every release is versioned and classified. Material or critical changes generate protected impact notices for active IAS-5 and IAS-6 outcomes. The receiving institution determines whether acknowledgement, conditions, reassessment or withdrawal is required.

A new version does not silently rewrite an earlier outcome.

Protected and public boundaries

What is public, and what remains protected?

The public surface explains the IAS architecture, authority boundaries, status logic and controlled-output formats. The protected registry contains institution profiles, evidence references, reviewer actions, reliance conditions, exceptions, release records and institutional outcomes.

Access is purpose-bound. Confidential evidence and credentials are not exposed through the public interface.

Legal and fiduciary reliance

Can IAS outputs be used for legal or fiduciary decisions?

Only where the controlled release expressly defines the purpose, scope, evidence period, reliance conditions, limitations and authorised recipients, and where the receiving institution accepts those terms under the applicable legal framework.

IAS does not create unlimited or implied reliance and does not replace legal, fiduciary, technical, regulatory, environmental or financial due diligence.