WEKID™ is an open, governed standard for evaluating knowledge maturity and governing AI Decision Authority. Practitioners, domain experts, researchers, academics, auditors, and public-sector leaders can contribute evidence, research, domain profiles, public comment, and proposed standards changes. Participation is open; acceptance is governed. The closer a contribution sits to the core, the stronger the evidence and review required.
Where you can contribute
The closer to the core, the higher the bar to change it.
“WEKID will always carry the open torch — even if the standard evolves past it.”
WEKID is committed to keeping the core standard published, contribution open, conformance criteria public, and stewardship designed to move to a neutral body as adoption grows. The full Pledge explains the structural commitments behind that promise and why openness must be designed into the standard rather than left to goodwill alone.
The rings beside the page title are these three surfaces: the closer a contribution sits to the core of the framework, the higher the bar to change it. The Epistemic Maturity Model evaluates what an intelligent system knows; the Decision Authority Model governs what it may be trusted to decide or do. The core stays stable; calibration and the evidence corpus are where most of the work happens.
The core includes the five WEKID layers — Wisdom, Experience, Knowledge, Information, and Data — the hierarchical dependency rules, the Epistemic Maturity Model, the Decision Authority Model, the Trust Bridge that orders maturity before authority, and the principle that authority delegation is subject to explicit governance gates. These provisions form the normative core of WEKID-STD-001 v1.1. The Foundational Whitepaper remains the intellectual and research foundation; accepted Standards-Track RFCs modify numbered Standards through versioned releases. Any community participant may suggest a core change; admission to the formal RFC path and final ratification are governed by the Standards Council.
Governed by public proposal and review, with Standards Council ratification required · changes are rare, evidence-heavy, and deliberate.
WEKID-STD-002 v1.0 governs this surface. It defines how scoring weights, evidence requirements, maturity thresholds, authority boundaries, gate conditions, decision-matrix outcomes, and domain-specific risk profiles may be calibrated without weakening the protected core. The result may be a versioned profile such as WEKID for Healthcare.
Governed by domain working groups, ratified by the Standards Council.
Documented AI failure cases, examples of knowledge-maturity breakdowns, instances of misdelegated decision authority, regulatory crosswalks (NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, EU AI Act), scored outputs, and reusable control patterns. The lowest bar and the highest volume — every entry is attributed to its contributor.
Governed by contributors and working groups · curated, not gatekept.
Choose the path that fits. You do not need to belong to a partner organization, and evidence and research contributions do not require Standards Cohort membership. Four of these contribute to the standard; the fifth is for implementing it—which is how an open specification becomes a living standard.
Submit AI failure cases, scored examples, best practices, and control patterns to the evidence corpus. The fastest way to get on the contributor registry and earn recognition.
Contribute a caseHelp build a domain profile with a small working group (typically 7–12 practitioners). The first group is forming in a regulated domain where the evidence is strongest — healthcare or financial services. Founding members shape the charter.
Join a working groupContribute whitepapers, studies, regulatory mappings, and WEKID layer mappings. The relationship among knowledge quality, human reliance, machine expertise, delegated authority, and responsible AI governance is an active research area. We want that scholarship connected to the continued development of both WEKID models.
Submit researchFollow active RFCs, participate in public comment, propose a framework change, or apply to serve in a working group. Community participation is open; formal review and ratification remain governed and auditable.
Browse RFCs & how it worksBuilding a product, an internal platform, or a governance programme on WEKID? You need no permission and no partner agreement to implement the published standard. Read the normative specification, implement the two models, and describe your product as supporting WEKID. To claim conformance, the criteria are public and the trademark license follows from passing them.
Read the permitted-use termsStandards-Track changes move through one transparent pipeline modeled on open standards practice: propose, triage, expert review, public comment, decision, and versioned release. Participation is open; acceptance is governed. Review requirements scale with the surface: evidence contributions are curated, calibration changes require domain review, and core changes receive the highest scrutiny. Each admitted RFC gets a stable identifier — for example, WEKID-RFC-001.
Any community participant may initiate a proposed change. Formal RFC submission currently uses the Standards Cohort portal; contributors who are not yet members can begin through the contribution path and be onboarded where appropriate.
The proposal is sorted to a surface — corpus, calibration, or core — which sets the review path and the bar it has to meet.
Assigned domain experts assess the proposal against the evidence and the framework, recording approve, request revisions, reject, or abstain findings in the permanent review record.
Calibration and core proposals open for public comment so the wider community can weigh in before a decision. Moderation is for relevance, civility, duplication, spam, and abuse — not agreement with WEKID or the proposal.
The Standards Council ratifies, returns for revision, or declines — with the rationale recorded against the RFC.
Accepted changes ship in a numbered release. Certification tracks named releases so credentials stay aligned with the framework.
Raw submissions remain private while WEKID verifies the evidence. Once a case is admitted for Editorial Review and receives a WF-NNN identifier, its status appears here. Published cases move into the Failure Library; an admitted contribution that is later declined remains visible here as part of the governance record.
The corpus holds 45 publicly documented AI failure cases, each mapped to the WEKID layer where the knowledge failure emerged, the relevant authority or governance failure, and the Decision Authority outcome the framework would recommend. A few are below; the full, searchable catalogue masks every organization so the focus stays on the governance lesson, with named detail released in the Executive Brief.
Everything above — the surfaces, the RFC pipeline, the failure corpus — exists because frameworks become standards when an ecosystem helps test, refine, and steward them. WEKID's Epistemic Maturity and Decision Authority models are intended to evolve through disciplined evidence, domain experience, and transparent governance. Community is the structured way to contribute to that evolution.
For individuals: practitioners, researchers, academics, auditors, and government participants who want to contribute to the framework, its domain profiles, and the body of evidence behind it. You can take part without belonging to a partner organization.
Ways to take partFor organizations: consulting firms, technology providers, training companies, and assessment firms that license, implement, and build WEKID-enabled solutions. WEKID enables partners rather than competing with them.
Visit PartnersThe Community program is new, but it builds on real, published work and a versioned standards process. These are the assets it starts from.
WEKID is stewarded today by WEKID LLC, which maintains the open standard, the certification program, and the WEKID™ trademark. A founding Standards Council and the first domain working group are forming now.
Openness that is not written down is a preference, not a commitment. These are the primary Creative Commons (CC) terms WEKID intends to publish under. Final text is with counsel; this table states the intent so it can be held against us.
The trademark exists to stop a non-conformant implementation being sold as the real thing. It is not there to stop you talking about WEKID, and the line between those two is drawn here rather than left to interpretation. How the mark itself is drawn is set out in the Brand & Wordmark Guidelines.
Describing what your work does with WEKID.
Claiming that an implementation meets the standard.
Brand & wordmark guidelines · v1.0
The rules above say whether you may use the name. These say how — the wordmark and its five-tier stack, the two colorways, clear space and minimum sizes, the full palette with print references, the typefaces, and what not to do to any of it. Published in full, not summarised.
Submit evidence or research, follow active RFCs, join a working group, or begin a proposed framework change.