Public Specification · Version 1.0
The public specification of the VAF. Six components. Three accountability tiers. One standard. Organizations may use this specification to build toward accountability independently. A Gap Score requires a formal Vordan assessment.
Doctrine
Accountability is not a property of a compliance document. It is a property of a system and the organization behind it. A system is Accountable by Design when accountability can be established before an incident, not reconstructed after one.
The VAF measures the distance between where an organization stands and that standard. That distance is the Gap Score. The goal is not a perfect score. The goal is a documented, revisable, and comparable trajectory of closing the distance.
Assessment instruments
The VAF is applied through three formally defined instruments. Each produces a different class of finding. They are not interchangeable and do not substitute for one another.
Instrument 01
The gold standard instrument. Requires direct organizational access: practitioner interviews, live evidence navigation, decision trail reconstruction, and signature gates at each component. Produces an official Gap Score out of 100.
Organizational Access RequiredInstrument 02
The Vordan External Posture Assessment. Applied where direct access is not available. Uses VAF accountability logic against the public record: documentation, filings, disclosed incidents, public statements. Produces external posture findings, not Gap Scores.
Public RecordInstrument 03
The Agentic Accountability Baseline. Applied to organizations deploying autonomous AI systems. Evaluates accountability posture against the Vordan Agentic Accountability Baseline for non-human decision chains, agent identity, and autonomous action traceability.
Agentic AIThe three accountability tiers
Each VAF component is evaluated against three tiers. An organization must satisfy the evidence requirements of a tier for that tier to count toward its assessment. Assertion is not evidence. The tier is determined by what the organization can show, not by what it believes to be true.
Tier 01
The accountability structure, policy, or control is present in documented form. Documentation exists. It has not been demonstrated to function.
Tier 02
The structure is demonstrably operational. Evidence of active use is required, not just existence. The documentation reflects practice.
Tier 03
Continuously maintained, tested, and updated. Governs behavior in practice, not just on paper. The highest tier. The standard Accountable by Design requires.
The six components
The VAF evaluates accountability across six components. Together they form a complete picture of whether an organization can answer for what its systems do. Every Vordan instrument operationalizes these six components differently. The components are the why. The instruments are the how.
Origin evaluates whether accountability is named at the organizational level. A system or program with no declared owner has no one to answer for it. Origin does not assess competence. It assesses declaration.
A named individual or role is assigned accountability for the system, program, or decision domain.
The named owner actively exercises that accountability through documented decisions.
Ownership is continuously reviewed, reassigned when roles change, and reflected in current documentation.
Voice evaluates the accuracy and consistency of an organization's public and internal representations of its systems and capabilities. Overclaiming is a governance failure. Underdisclosing is an accountability failure.
Public and internal statements about system capabilities are documented.
Statements are reviewed for accuracy and updated when capabilities change.
A formal process governs what the organization claims and ensures claims are defensible under scrutiny.
Traceability evaluates whether the organization maintains records sufficient to reconstruct what happened, who decided it, and on what basis. An audit trail that cannot survive scrutiny is not an audit trail.
Logs, records, or documentation exist for material decisions and system actions.
Records are sufficient to reconstruct a decision chain without gaps.
Records are tamper-evident, independently verifiable, and retained beyond the minimum required period.
Timing evaluates the velocity of governance response relative to the velocity of the threat or change being governed. A policy updated annually in a threat environment that changes weekly is a timing gap.
A process exists for monitoring and responding to relevant changes in the threat or regulatory environment.
The organization has demonstrated timely response to material changes or incidents.
Response velocity is measured, benchmarked, and continuously improved.
Response evaluates whether the organization has a defined, tested, and published process for handling failures, incidents, and errors. A response process that only exists after the incident is not a response process.
An incident response or error correction process is documented.
The process has been exercised and the record reflects actual use.
The response process is tested regularly, publicly disclosed where applicable, and continuously refined.
Transparency evaluates whether the organization makes its governance structure, decision-making processes, and accountability posture accessible to those who need to assess it. Transparency is not disclosure of everything. It is disclosure of what is necessary for legitimate accountability.
Core governance information is publicly or appropriately available.
Governance information is current, accurate, and navigable by those who need it.
Transparency is a stated organizational commitment with a defined process for maintaining it.
Methodology note
This specification publishes the VAF component definitions, tier criteria, and evidence requirements in full. Organizations may use this specification to assess their own accountability posture and build toward the Active tier on each component.
The Gap Score is a proprietary output of a formal Vordan assessment. The weighting algorithm, component aggregation methodology, and scoring instrument are not included in this specification. A Gap Score cannot be self-assigned. It requires direct organizational access, evidence review, and assessment by Vordan.
The standard is open so organizations can build toward accountability without waiting for an assessment. The score is closed so it cannot be gamed into a checkbox exercise.
Self-assessment guidance
For each of the six components, work through the three tiers in sequence. The question for each tier is not whether the structure exists in theory. It is whether you can produce evidence that it exists, functions, and is actively maintained.
Organizations that engage Vordan for a formal VAF Assessment receive the full scoring instrument, component weighting, and Gap Score with documented evidentiary basis. Assessments are handled confidentially.
For governance readiness assessments, external posture reviews, or formal VAF inquiries, reach out directly.