Human oversight, accessibility, trust, safety, and explainability need explicit design treatment.
Supported by external standards and guidance. Application within TADF remains a framework interpretation.
06 · The proof system
Trust the evidence.
See the limits.
TADF separates research-backed principles, framework models, unvalidated targets, designed products, and future ambitions. Confidence depends on knowing which is which.
Evidence status
What is established, and what is not.
This is the minimum integrity standard for presenting TADF to clients, partners, or internal investment committees.
The nine stages, quality loop, agent boundaries, and maturity system are authored operating models.
Internally coherent and fully specified, but not equivalent to independently validated industry standards.
Stage-specific time-saved estimates and expected operating improvements.
Targets must be measured in pilots before they are presented as organisational results.
Figma Command Center, Checkpoint Cards, audit interface, and assessment experience.
Product specifications exist. Production software and usage evidence do not yet exist.
Learning delivery, certification operations, team dashboards, and licensable enterprise system.
These are strategic directions. Commercial model, field validity, and operating capacity remain to be established.
Research base
01Primary source ↗02Primary source ↗03Primary source ↗04Primary source ↗05Primary source ↗
Microsoft HAX
Human–AI interaction guidance covering capability, limitations, correction, failure handling, and user control.
W3C WCAG 2.2
Observable accessibility success criteria across perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust experiences.
NIST AI RMF
Trustworthiness characteristics including validity, safety, security, transparency, explainability, privacy, and fairness.
ISO/IEC 25010
A product quality model that informs systematic evaluation of software and systems.
EU AI Act
Regulatory context for risk, transparency, governance, and human oversight in AI systems.
External sources support specific principles, not every claim made by the TADF operating model. Each client-facing claim should preserve that distinction.
Validation roadmap
Proof must accumulate in stages.
No invented case studies. No implied adoption. The first pilots should be published with context, baseline, intervention, result, and limitation.
Expert review
Independent review by design leaders, researchers, accessibility specialists, AI governance practitioners, and engineering partners.
Evidence: critique log and framework revisionsControlled pilots
Run one team through two stages using a pre-defined baseline, checkpoint protocol, and comparison period.
Evidence: pilot reports and raw measuresCross-context replication
Repeat across products, team maturities, industries, and risk levels without changing success criteria after the fact.
Evidence: comparable multi-pilot datasetIndependent validation
Invite external practitioners or research partners to test the model and publish contradictory findings.
Evidence: independent reports and revisionsCurrent limitations
No field-validated outcome dataset yet
The framework is complete as a specification, but organisational impact has not been demonstrated across multiple pilots.
Assessment rubric is designed, not calibrated
Scoring consistency, assessor reliability, and certification thresholds require real candidates and repeated evaluation.
Product layer is conceptual
The Command Center interface and platform architecture need implementation, security review, and usability validation.
Commercial model remains open
Licensing, consulting, training, certification, support, and maintenance responsibilities must be defined before sale.
Tool landscape changes quickly
Examples and implementation guidance require versioning and regular review even though the core skills are model-agnostic.
Industry adaptation is incomplete
Regulated sectors need specific controls, evidence standards, and specialist review beyond the general framework.
Framework version
Versioning is part of trust.
Every certification, pilot, claim, prompt, and governance rule should identify the framework version it used.
v1.0
Complete seven-phase specification
Foundation, nine-stage process, 141 skills, 25 agents, Command Center specification, prompt and governance model, learning and certification design.
CurrentNext
Field validation release
Pilot evidence, revised benchmarks, calibrated assessments, tested artefacts, and documented changes arising from contradictory findings.
Pending evidence