Risk
Decision Reconstruction Risk
The record survives, but the basis for the decision cannot be reconstructed from the file itself.
Examine the risk →JRS™ · Justification Review Standard
Can this record still explain the decision it documents?
JRS is a pre-finalization documentation-review standard. It examines whether a consequential record preserves the basis, evidence, reasoning, and chronology needed for later independent review.
Asset boundary. JRS is the public methodology. The Review Engine is a controlled technical implementation maintained separately for evaluation and possible integration. The Decision Reconstruction Manifest is the versioned evidence-artifact specification. Publication permits inspection. It does not grant commercial, implementation, transfer, or trademark rights.
Method
JRS Standard v1.0
Instrument
Five review conditions
Evidence
Measured results and stated limits
Technology
Operational validation
The operating question
The record must survive the decision-maker.
If the decision is challenged two years from now, an independent reviewer should be able to determine what happened, what evidence was considered, how the reasoning developed, and why the recorded conclusion followed.
Method
Five review conditions
JRS examines reconstructability, basis identification, chronology, decision-process traceability, and evidentiary sufficiency before finalization.
Review the method →Evidence
Results with limitations
The research record separates detection performance, reliability, cross-vendor agreement, negative findings, and matters not yet established.
Review the evidence →Technical artifact
Decision Reconstruction Manifest
The public package defines a portable, versioned artifact for preserving one JRS evaluation and its integrity metadata.
Open the Manifest package →Two distinct paths
Choose the path that matches your role.
Individual practitioners do not need an enterprise agreement to use the published standard, field tools, training, simulations, or record check. Organizations considering technical integration, licensing, or acquisition use a separate controlled inquiry path.
Practitioners and researchers
Public standard and free resources
Free and ungated materials support independent professional use, training, citation, and structured record review.
- JRS Standard and review conditions
- Field guides, worksheets, training, and simulations
- Research results, negative findings, and limitations
Organizations and platforms
Evaluation, integration, and transaction pathway
Qualified organizations can examine the Review Engine, Manifest, data handling, validation status, and potential integration path.
- Controlled platform evaluation
- Technical integration and licensing
- Exclusive licensing or acquisition discussions
Asset and integration architecture
One connected asset, with public and controlled layers.
JRS is not a single document or a standalone schema. Its value comes from the relationship among the methodology, evidence, implementation, technical output, training, and provenance records.
Standard and DRRThe public methodology, problem definition, and five review conditions.
Research and resourcesResults, limitations, training, field tools, and practitioner demonstrations.
Review EngineThe controlled technical implementation used to evaluate one record.
ManifestThe versioned, machine-readable artifact intended to preserve one evaluation.
DocumentationAPI, architecture, implementation, validation, security, and operating records.
Provenance and rightsVersion history, evidence records, chain-of-title documentation, and unresolved questions.
- Customer recordRemains under customer control where the approved architecture permits.
- Minimum necessary representationOnly the approved input required for evaluation is transmitted.
- Review EngineApplies the documented technical mapping of the five conditions.
- ManifestReturns a versioned result, warnings, integrity metadata, and human-review requirement.
- Customer workflowThe customer stores the artifact and controls correction, acceptance, or escalation.
Current versus target. The versioned API returns a structured evaluation result and can return a development Manifest when an authenticated caller explicitly requests it. The caller must retain the artifact under its own controls. A customer-controlled evidence store remains a target integration responsibility.
Current state
Present capability and target architecture remain distinct.
Public methodology
Published and usable without purchasing software.
Review Engine
Operationally implemented, single-model, and empirically unvalidated for autonomous consequential-decision use.
Manifest v1.0
Public schema and example available. A controlled generator and integrity tests exist.
Current API output
An authenticated caller can request a development Manifest with the Engine result. Automatic storage in a customer-controlled evidence repository is not provided.
Human authority
JRS identifies documentation conditions requiring review. It does not make the underlying professional decision.
Transaction status
Licensing and acquisition conversations may begin. A binding transfer remains subject to established rights and an executed agreement.
Current commercial status. JRS is ready for licensing, integration, and acquisition conversations. It is not represented as ready for execution of an exclusive licence or asset purchase agreement until the conveyable rights and transaction terms have been established.
Development and accountability
Built from practical review work, tested through an evidence program.
JRS was developed by Phillip Wikes, former Lead Civil Rights Officer at the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The public research record identifies what has been measured, what the results support, what failed, and what remains uncertain.