Methodological defensibility depends on controlled scope, evidence, review and decision records.
An AIGR rating is a governance opinion within a defined scope and date. The methodology version, evidence set, decision record and stated limitations are retained to support reconstruction and review.
Diagnostics and rating designation are deliberately separated.
Governance Score
A 0–100 internal analytical measure supports diagnostics, remediation prioritization and trend analysis. Calculation logic remains controlled.
AIGR designation
A categorical designation from AIGR-100 through AIGR-40, plus AIGR-NR, supports executive interpretation and controlled reporting.
Eight broad governance domains frame the public rating view.
The operational MVP uses a more granular control library underneath these categories. Sector and jurisdiction overlays can change evidence expectations without changing the core evidence model.
Four tests determine whether an artifact supports a conclusion.
Relevance
Addresses the control as written rather than an adjacent practice.
Currency
Reflects the system and evidence period in scope.
Traceability
Maintains identifiable ownership, date and source.
Sufficiency
Demonstrates the control operating, not merely being designed.
Versioning, change control and retained decision records.
Versioning
Issued reports identify the methodology version applied.
Change control
Material criteria changes are documented and do not silently rewrite prior decisions.
Calibration
Review decisions can be compared for consistency across assessments.
Confidentiality
Client evidence remains tenant-segregated and is not reproduced in public rating outputs.
Appeals
Factual error, evidence omission, framework misapplication or scope misstatement can be challenged through a recorded process.
Records
Assessment, review, approval and material decision history is retained for later reconstruction.