A.1.CSD:12 - SoTA Echoing and Source Use
Each row distinguishes a descriptive result, constructive Method, normative premise, or institutional preference; it retains only the action supported for this use.
| Source line | Claim and practical action retained | Adoption status and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Ulrich and Reynolds, Critical Systems Heuristics: The Idea and Practice of Boundary Critique, 2020 | Boundary critique is an argued reflective and discursive Method. It changes practice here by adding an outside-in challenge after forward tracing. | Adapt. Retain the boundary challenge; do not import its complete normative programme, twelve-question form, System recognition, completeness claim, or scale priority. |
| OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, 2023, and Due Diligence Guidance, 2018 | The guidance supplies an operational mapping and reassessment Method for actual and potential consequences across operations and remote relationships. It changes practice by widening path generation and reopening after conditions change. | Adapt. Enterprise duties, rightsholders, severity priorities, remedy, and authority remain domain results; publication status is not evidence of effectiveness. |
| European Commission, Better Regulation Toolbox 2023, Tool 18 and Chapter 2 | The institutional procedure distinguishes direct/indirect, intended/unintended, positive/negative, and one-off/recurrent consequences and asks for proportionate depth. | Adapt. Retain path and horizon prompts; reject its affected-group list, territorial ladder, reporting categories, monetization preference, and form as universal ontology or work order. |
| NIST, AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 and Map playbook, checked 2026-08-26 | The framework and playbook add misuse, repurposing, downstream factors, external feedback, later conditions, and continuing remapping as prompts. | Adapt. Reject AI actor classes, ready scale lists, risk taxonomy, governance apparatus, and aggregate score as general FPF results. |
| ISO/IEC/IEEE 24748-7000:2022, IEEE 7000-2021, and ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2023 | These normative engineering standards provide implementable traceability and iterative/lifecycle attention. They change practice by keeping selected concerns linked to concepts, requirements, design choices, and later observation. | Adapt conditionally. Conformance and involvement do not prove bearer completeness, discovery effectiveness, System construction, representation, or authority. The full processes stay in engineering practice. |
| Friedman and Hendry, Value Sensitive Design, 2nd ed., 2026, and the authors’ current Method account | Current VSD retains direct/indirect stakeholder and value-scenario prompts and multi-lifespan attention. Value scenarios can widen social/design path generation. | Adapt conditionally. Human-value orientation is a normative premise, not the A.1.CSD admission test. Route Diverse Voices and tech-policy participation to the direct domain practice. |
| U.S. EPA, Conducting an Ecological Risk Assessment and EcoBox analysis material, checked 2026-08-26 | Laboratory, field, monitoring, and modeled practices support stressor-to-receptor tracing, exposure/effect separation, time, recovery, uncertainty, and evidence-producing questions. They provide the neutral living-System stress test. | Adapt. Organism, population, community, and ecosystem are prompts, not a ready FPF holarchy. Regulatory endpoints, adversity judgments, risk estimates, and the complete ecological procedure remain domain results. |
These sources converge on path tracing, boundary challenge, proportional inquiry, qualified uncertainty, and reopening. Their taxonomies, normative ends, calculations, evidence thresholds, and authority do not converge and are not imported.