Standard Governance Health Check 2.2.7-2

Purpose

The standard governance health check evaluates any multi-organizational cooperative arrangement against the criteria of pluralism with standards. It asks whether the arrangement's architecture permits the correction of unfairness — not whether the participants feel the arrangement is fair. The check is structural, not attitudinal.

The Four Dimensions

Participation

Who participates in the standards-setting process? Evaluate against these indicators:

• Are membership criteria published and evidence-based?
• Can any organization meeting the criteria participate, or are there informal barriers (cost, invitation, geographic restriction) that exclude potential participants?
• Is the participant roster diverse in a structural sense — representing different organizational sizes, sectors, perspectives, and interests — or does it represent a narrow constituency?

Warning signal: Membership is nominally open but the participant roster has not changed in two or more revision cycles.

Decision Process

How are standards decisions made? Evaluate against these indicators:

• Is the decision process documented and available to all participants before decisions are made?
• Can participants see the evidence, reasoning, and alternatives considered for each significant decision? (Apply the reasoned decision template standard from 2.2.6-1.)
• Are decisions made through a mechanism that prevents any single participant or faction from exercising veto or unilateral control?

Warning signal: The published rationale for a decision does not match the deliberation record — or no deliberation record exists.

Contestability

Can participants challenge standards decisions? Evaluate against these indicators:

• Does a dispute resolution mechanism exist that is independent of the body making the decisions?
• Can participants challenge a decision without penalty (no retaliation, no informal sanction, no loss of standing)?
• Have any decisions been successfully challenged and revised in the last two revision cycles?

Warning signal: A dispute mechanism exists on paper but has never been used — or has been used but never produced a revision.

Exit

Can participants leave without disproportionate penalty? Evaluate against these indicators:

• Are exit terms published at the time of entry?
• Can a participant depart without losing contributed data, accumulated reputation, or contractual rights disproportionate to benefits received?
• Has any participant exited in the last three years? If so, what was their reported experience?

Warning signal: No participant has ever exited — which may indicate either a well-functioning arrangement or an arrangement from which departure is practically impossible.

Scoring

The health check is not a pass/fail instrument. It produces a profile of the arrangement's structural strengths and vulnerabilities. Each dimension is rated:

• Functional: The indicators are met and the arrangement demonstrates capacity for self-correction.
• At risk: Some indicators are met but warning signals are present.
• Compromised: Multiple indicators are unmet and the arrangement shows no evidence of self-correction capacity.

An arrangement that is "compromised" on any single dimension warrants investigation. An arrangement that is "compromised" on exit carries a structural vulnerability regardless of its performance on the other three dimensions — not proof that the arrangement has become coercive, but a design failure that removes the mechanism by which participants could confirm the arrangement remains voluntary and the other dimensions can be evaluated honestly.

The health check is designed to be run annually or at each standards-body revision cycle — whichever comes first — to track whether the arrangement's structural capacity for self-correction is improving, stable, or degrading over time.