1. Purpose & Scope
The Editorial Submission Framework defines how practitioner contributions, observations, and proposals enter the CIAO Standard. It governs who may submit, what they may submit, how submissions are received, how they are attributed, what feedback the contributor receives, and how a submission is routed into the Change Management & Versioning Process.
This Framework applies to every contribution channel through which content originating outside the Secretariat enters the change pipeline. It does not govern Panel-initiated proposals (which enter the workflow at the review stage by design), Secretariat-initiated proposals (which the Secretariat owns directly), or formal errata reports (which follow the fast-path described in the Change Management & Versioning Process Section 10). The Practitioner pipeline is the priority-one input channel and the primary subject of this Framework.
Three operational principles bind the design throughout. First, the Standard improves through use. Every paid-tier member operates the Standard against their organisation’s specific terrain — sectors, jurisdictions, scale, vintage of source standards, internal politics. That operating experience is the richest source of improvement available to the Standard. The Framework’s job is to make that experience easy to capture and reliable to route.
Second, submissions are attributable but never privileged. Attribution is a benefit to contributors, not a lever for influence. Whether a submission becomes a change is determined by the Change Management Process, not by the contributor’s tier, region, or any commercial relationship.
Third, the Framework operates inside the volunteer governance integrity declared in the Volunteer Contribution & Compensation Disclosure. No submitter is paid for a submission, no submitter is granted preferential review by virtue of payment status (other than the tier-gating defined in Section 4), and no commercial partner of the Standard receives privileged change rights through this channel.
2. Submission Channels
The Framework defines three channels. The channel determines the form, the routing destination, and the feedback commitments owed.
Practitioner Submission (primary channel). A structured online form gated to authenticated paid-tier members. Submissions through this channel are timestamped, attributed to the contributor’s tier (and optionally to the individual contributor), and routed directly into the triage queue.
Practitioner Direct (secondary channel). Direct e-mail to the editorial mailbox for submissions where the structured form cannot accommodate the content — extended case material, multi-part submissions referencing external attachments, or submissions where the contributor’s organisational sensitivity requires a private exchange before the submission becomes part of the public change log.
Public Comment (tertiary channel). A general-public form (no membership required) for observations, errors, and questions. Public Comment submissions enter a separate triage queue and are reviewed for promotion into the change pipeline only when the content is substantively material to the Standard. Most Public Comment submissions are answered as enquiries rather than promoted.
The three channels are listed in priority order. The Practitioner Submission channel is the channel the Standard is designed around; the Direct and Public Comment channels exist to ensure no useful contribution is structurally turned away.
3. Submission Form Specification
The Practitioner Submission form is the centre of gravity for this Framework. Its fields are codified here so they are reproducible across implementations and stable across releases.
Submission identity (auto-populated from authentication)
- Submitter user ID (internal — not exposed in the published change log).
- Submitter membership tier at submission time.
- Region of operation (member-declared at registration).
- Industry sector (member-declared at registration; optional).
- Submission timestamp.
Affected scope (member-selected)
- Affected CAO domain(s) — multi-select from the nine CAO domains. The submitter selects “Cross-cutting” if the submission is not domain-specific.
- Affected document(s) — typed search across the Document Registry. The submitter selects one or more documents they believe the submission affects. Documents above the submitter’s tier scope are not selectable (see Section 4).
- Affected source standard(s) — selectable from the Canonical Source Standards Register, multi-select. Used when the submission concerns a mapping clause.
Submission content
- Submission type — required single-select from a closed vocabulary (see Section 6 Triage Inputs).
- Summary — one sentence (≤ 200 characters), required. The Secretariat uses this as the change-log title if the submission proceeds.
- Description — long-form text (no length cap; encouraged 200–2000 words). Required.
- Suggested resolution — long-form text, optional. Where the submitter has a specific proposed change in mind, they articulate it here.
- Confidentiality — required single-select: Public attribution permitted / Tier attribution only / Anonymised attribution only. Default: Tier attribution only.
Attribution declaration
- Individual attribution name (free text, optional). If provided and the contributor selects Public attribution permitted, this name appears in the change log entry alongside the contribution.
- Organisational attribution (free text, optional). If provided and Public attribution permitted is selected, this organisation name appears alongside the individual name.
Conflict of interest declaration (optional but encouraged)
A free-text field for the submitter to declare any commercial, personal, or sectoral interest that might bear on triage’s evaluation of the submission. Declarations do not disqualify a submission — they inform triage’s review and may inform Panel review’s recusal logic.
Acknowledgement
A required acknowledgement that the submission becomes the subject of the Change Management Process workflow on receipt; that the submitter does not retain editorial control over the resulting publication; that the submission’s confidentiality preference is respected through the change log but does not prevent the underlying material from informing Standard development.
The form persists drafts in the member’s account so a contributor can compose a long-form submission across multiple sessions. Submission is a one-click commit; no edits are accepted after submission, but the contributor may submit a follow-up submission referencing the prior submission ID.
4. Tier Gating & Submission Scope
The Practitioner Submission channel is gated by membership tier, and a submitter’s permitted submission scope is bounded by the tier scope visible to that submitter. This bounding is a deliberate design choice: a contributor proposes changes only to material they can read and operate against. A member cannot submit changes to tier content they have not seen.
Commons-tier members. Submissions limited to the Public Comment channel. The Practitioner Submission form is not available; the Direct channel is not available. Commons access is structurally a reading tier, and the Practitioner pipeline is structurally a contributing tier.
Core-tier members. May submit to Commons and Core content.
Essential-tier members. May submit to Commons, Core, and Essential content.
Professional-tier members. May submit to Commons, Core, Essential, and Professional content.
Enterprise-tier members. May submit to Commons, Core, Essential, Professional, and Enterprise content.
Conglomerate-tier members. May submit to all tiers, including Conglomerate-tier bespoke artefacts.
The submission-scope bound is enforced at the form-rendering layer (the affected-document selector hides documents above the submitter’s tier scope) and at the submission-acceptance layer (a submission referencing documents above the submitter’s tier scope is rejected with a redirect to a clarification interface).
Where a submission concerns Cross-cutting material that affects multiple tiers, the submission is accepted at the submitter’s highest accessible tier, and triage may route it across tiers as appropriate. A Core-tier member submitting a Cross-cutting observation that triage finds materially affects Professional-tier content has their observation routed accordingly, with notification to the submitter.
Register-Bounded Submission Scope
In addition to the tier-bounded scope set out above, every submission is bounded by the Canonical Source Standards Register. The submission form’s affected-source-standards selector is populated from the Register; selections are constrained to entries currently in the Register. A submitter cannot select an unregistered source standard at form level.
Where a submitter wishes to propose an amendment that engages a source standard not yet in the Register, the form routes them to a Register Addition Request submission type — see Section 6. The substantive amendment they have in mind is held pending completion of the Register addition workflow set out in the Change Management & Versioning Process Section 5. The Register’s authority over what may be referenced is independent of any individual submitter’s tier; even a Conglomerate-tier submitter cannot reference a source standard not in the Register through a substantive amendment.
5. Confidentiality & Attribution
The Framework recognises three attribution levels and binds each through the change log.
Public attribution permitted. The submitter’s individual name (and optionally organisation name) appears in the change log entry crediting the submission. The change log entry is itself a public artefact — searchable, indexable, citable. Public attribution is the strongest form of credit and enables the contributor to reference the contribution as professional work.
Tier attribution only (default). The change log entry credits “a Core-tier member” or “an Enterprise-tier member” without naming the individual or organisation. This protects the submitter’s organisational sensitivity while still allowing the change log to communicate the submission’s source class.
Anonymised attribution only. The change log entry credits “a CIAO member” without indicating the tier. Used where even tier-level attribution might identify the contributor — for example, where a tier has a small number of members in a specific industry sector and identifying the tier would functionally identify the source.
A submission’s confidentiality preference is set at submission and is honoured throughout the change log lifecycle. A contributor may, at any time after submission, request a confidentiality downgrade (e.g., from Tier to Anonymised); the Secretariat honours such requests and updates the existing change log entry. Confidentiality upgrades are also honoured but require a written confirmation from the contributor confirming the upgrade is voluntary and informed.
The internal submission identity (user ID, exact tier, region, sector) is preserved in the Secretariat’s audit trail regardless of public confidentiality preference. This trail is not exposed to the public change log; it is used solely for internal recusal evaluation, contributor follow-up, and audit defence.
6. Triage Inputs
Submissions arrive carrying a submission type. The vocabulary is closed and corresponds to triage’s first-pass classification.
Implementation note. A finding from operating practice — “we found that clause X is read differently by audit teams and operations teams in our context, here is how the difference shows up.” Implementation notes typically route to Editorial or Material category depending on whether the finding suggests clarification or substantive change.
Gap finding. A finding that the Standard has insufficient material to govern a particular operating circumstance the submitter encountered. Gap findings typically route to Material or Structural category.
Proposed clarification. A submitter’s proposed wording change, addition, or restructure to a specific clause. Proposed clarifications enter the workflow with the submitter’s suggested resolution as the editorial starting point.
Emerging-practice observation. An observation that practice in a particular sector or region has moved in a direction not yet reflected in the Standard. Emerging-practice observations typically route to Material category and may inform tier-content depth-build.
Industry-vertical nuance. A submission identifying a sector-specific consideration that the Standard’s general-purpose treatment does not adequately accommodate. Industry-vertical nuances typically route to either a sub-policy treatment within an existing CAO domain or a sector-specific framework deposit at the appropriate tier.
Anonymised case snippet. A short de-identified narrative of a real operating situation the submitter encountered, intended to inform Standard development without becoming case-study material. Case snippets do not directly trigger change but enrich Panel review and inform Secretariat-initiated proposals.
Errata report. A reported error in published material. Errata reports route to the Change Management Process Section 10 fast-path rather than into the main triage queue. The Practitioner Submission form distinguishes errata explicitly so the submitter does not need to know the fast-path exists; the routing happens at receipt.
Register Addition Request. A submission proposing the addition of a new source standard to the Canonical Source Standards Register, typically because the submitter encounters a regulatory or framework obligation that the existing Register does not yet cover. Register Addition Requests are processed under the Change Management & Versioning Process Section 5 Register Addition Request trigger pathway, which is eventually-consistent: the new entry’s full back-mapping into existing CIAO content proceeds across subsequent minor releases rather than triggering an immediate major release. The submitter receives notification at each stage of the addition workflow.
Other. A free-text catch-all for submissions that do not fit any of the above. Triage is permitted to recategorise Other submissions on intake, with notification to the submitter of the recategorisation.
7. Routing & Acknowledgement
A submission is acknowledged within twenty-four hours of receipt. The acknowledgement is automated and contains the submission ID, the timestamp, the captured submission type, the affected scope (as the submitter declared it), and the confidentiality preference. The acknowledgement does not commit the Secretariat to any particular triage outcome.
Triage occurs within fourteen days of receipt for Practitioner Submission and Direct channel submissions. Public Comment channel submissions are triaged on a best-effort basis and are not bound to the fourteen-day commitment.
The triage outcome is communicated to the submitter as one of: Accepted into pipeline, Held for clarification, Returned out of scope, Promoted to Material/Structural pathway, or Demoted to Public Comment. Once a submission has progressed past triage, the contributor receives a notification at each subsequent Change Management stage transition affecting their submission, up to and including publication and post-publication notification.
8. Frequency & Volume Norms
The Framework anticipates that mature operation generates between two and ten submissions per paid member per year, distributed unevenly — most contributions emerge during organisational events that surface gaps (an audit, an incident, a new regulatory requirement). The Secretariat monitors submission volume per tier per quarter and publishes trend observations in the Quarterly Errata & Submission Summary (a forthcoming companion to the Errata Summary specified in the Change Management Process Section 10).
Submission volume is published in aggregate (total submissions, breakdowns by tier and category) but not at member-organisation granularity. Member-organisation granularity is preserved within Secretariat audit trail only.
9. Anti-Gaming Provisions
The Framework recognises that an attribution-bearing public change log creates incentives for gaming — submissions designed to claim credit rather than improve the Standard. Three guardrails operate.
Triage applies a substantiveness check before acceptance. A submission that does not articulate a specific finding, gap, or proposal — that reads as an attempt to file a contribution-without-substance — is returned out of scope.
Repeat shallow submissions from the same contributor trigger a triage flag. Three returned-out-of-scope submissions from the same submitter within a quarter results in a written communication from the Secretariat clarifying the substantiveness expectation. Continued shallow submissions may result in tier-level temporary suspension from the Practitioner channel for that submitter, with appeal route through the Panel.
Coordinated mass-submission campaigns — multiple submissions originating from coordinated parties pursuing a particular change — are detected through triage’s pattern review and are handled as a single proposal with shared attribution rather than multiple independent submissions.
These guardrails are designed to preserve the channel’s integrity for the contributors who use it in good faith — which is the substantial majority. They are not used to filter politically inconvenient submissions; the substantiveness check is the only acceptance criterion.
10. Adjacent Channels
The Framework references but does not subsume three adjacent input channels operated under separate authority.
Panel Advisor proposals are governed by the Panel’s internal procedures and enter the Change Management Process workflow at the review stage. The Editorial Submission Framework does not apply to Panel Advisor input.
Errata reports through the Public Comment channel are routed to the Change Management Process Section 10 fast-path on receipt; the Practitioner Submission form’s errata submission type achieves the same routing for paid-tier members.
Source-standard re-issue notifications — when a referenced source standard is itself revised by its issuing body — are detected by Secretariat monitoring of the Canonical Source Standards Register. They are not contributor-submitted in the Editorial Submission sense but are recognised here as a parallel input pathway.
11. Hooks
This Framework integrates with the Change Management & Versioning Process and with adjacent administrative instruments. Submissions exit this Framework at triage acceptance and enter the Change Management Process at the triage stage. The forthcoming Footer Metadata System will eventually render contribution-attribution at the document-footer level. The forthcoming Release Calendar lists in-pipeline submissions by category (without identifying contributors) so members can see what is being considered for the next release.
12. Transitional Provisions
Until the Practitioner Submission form is implemented in the Standard’s public site, the Practitioner channel operates by structured e-mail to the editorial mailbox. The form fields specified in Section 3 are issued as a downloadable submission template that paid-tier members complete and e-mail in. Triage operates manually under the same fourteen-day commitment.
The Direct channel operates from initial activation; no transitional provision is required.
The Public Comment channel operates initially through the existing site contact form; a dedicated Public Comment submission interface is a forthcoming companion to the Practitioner Submission form. This Section 12 sunsets when the three submission channels are fully implemented.
Part of the CIAO Standard administrative instruments — see Standard Administration for the canonical index of operational policies and processes.
Part of the CIAO Standard architecture — see Standard Architecture & Tier Content Depth for the canonical domain spine and tier-by-tier content ladder.