This is the standard public operating language used across FO Operational Sheets and Operational Demos. Where those materials name a state or a verdict, they use the exact terms defined here — so a term means the same thing in a case, a checklist, and an interactive model.
This document fixes the vocabulary — the labels and their definitions — for reasoning about whether a prior assessment still governs a decision once new evidence has arrived. It exists so a term means the same thing everywhere it is used.
This document defines terms only. It is public educational language. It does not contain, and does not imply: which combinations of inputs produce which verdict; any threshold, weight, or scoring; any internal state-transition rule; or any part of the FO Core decision engine. It describes what the words mean, not how a decision is computed.
Two groups describe the inputs (what the new evidence is). Three describe the outputs (how the prior assessment and the action are treated). Materiality is kept as its own group deliberately.
How the new evidence relates to the basis of the earlier assessment — about what the evidence is about, not how reliable it is.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Direct | The evidence bears straight on the assumption the earlier assessment rested on. |
| Indirect | The evidence is relevant to the matter, but does not directly touch the earlier basis. |
| Unrelated | The evidence does not bear on the assumptions behind the earlier conclusion. |
How well established the new evidence is in itself — about whether the evidence can be relied on, independently of what it relates to.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Confirmed | Established by independent, reliable means. |
| Partially Corroborated | Has some independent support, but is not yet fully established. |
| Unconfirmed | Would matter if true, but its own reliability is not yet established. |
Evidentiary Standing and Evidence Relation are independent properties. A report can be Direct and Unconfirmed at once, or Indirect and Confirmed. They must never be collapsed into a single scale.
Whether the new evidence bears on the earlier assessment at all — a relevance result, not a level of reliability.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Not Material | The new evidence does not bear on the basis of the earlier assessment, and therefore does not, by itself, re-open it. |
Whether the earlier conclusion still governs the present decision.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Currently Supported | The new evidence does not touch the basis of the earlier assessment, which remains eligible to govern. This does not assert that the earlier conclusion has now been proven true — only that nothing has changed its basis. |
| Re-Qualification Required | The new evidence bears on the basis, so the earlier assessment no longer governs automatically. It must be re-qualified against the current evidence before it is relied on. It is not yet discarded. |
| No Longer Eligible | The earlier assessment can no longer govern the present decision, and must be replaced by a current finding. This describes present eligibility only; it does not mean the earlier conclusion was unreasonable, negligent, or dishonest when it was made. |
How a specific action is treated, given the current evidence and the eligibility of the prior assessment. Read per action — the same evidence can treat different actions differently.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Eligible for Consideration | The action is available to be decided on its merits now. The prior assessment does not stand in its way, and the evidence supports considering it. "For consideration" is deliberate: this states eligibility, not obligation. |
| Held Pending Re-Qualification | The action would rely on an assessment that can no longer govern on its own. It is held until the prior assessment is re-qualified. |
| Separate Threshold Required | Whether to take the action is governed by a separate legal, regulatory, contractual, or proportionality threshold that this language does not decide. The vocabulary states only whether the prior assessment stands in the way — not whether the external threshold is met. |
| Avoid | Use instead | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "Closed" / "Dismissed" | Re-Qualification Required / No Longer Eligible | "Closed" implies the earlier review ended and wrongly suggests negligence; the point is that it is being re-qualified. |
| "Insufficient Evidence" (as a state) | Unconfirmed (standing) + Re-Qualification Required (eligibility) | Conflates the evidence's reliability with the assessment's eligibility — two separate groups. |
| "Not Material" as reliability | Keep Not Material in the Materiality group | Materiality is relevance, not reliability. |
| "Required" / "Must notify" | Separate Threshold Required | The vocabulary does not decide legal or proportionality thresholds. |
| "Blocked" (for an action) | Held Pending Re-Qualification | "Held" names what is suspended and why; "blocked" implies a permanent bar. |
This is public educational language. It does not include: