This is a concept-coverage check, not a conformance or validation test. It compares names only; nothing about your model is checked for correctness, type, or meaning. Paste your own model's field names below and see which of OCOM's Core Characteristics (per Meta/Object.md) it already has a name for.

Not part of the OCOM Specification.
Creates no normative requirements.
Not a source of truth: Meta/Object.md is.
Makes no conformance or validation claim.

See OCOM applied in a worked example → Library Lending

Your model's concept or field names

One per line. Case doesn't matter. Nothing you type here is sent anywhere or saved.

Coverage against your model: not a pass/fail, not a schema check.

Required

Optional

Ready to try it on your team? → Run a First Pilot

How the matching works

Each line you enter is trimmed and compared, case-insensitively, against a fixed, short list of accepted spellings per concept: the singular and the plural, plus Owner for Ownership, which is the word Meta/Ownership.md itself uses for the role. That's the entire algorithm.

No fuzzy matching, no synonyms, no guessing what a field "probably means."
No types, values, enums, or cardinality are read or checked.
Required and Optional come directly from Meta/Object.md's own Core Characteristics list, nothing added, nothing inferred.
All seven required and all six optional characteristics are scored, including Governance, Evaluation and Versioning. Governance is listed by Meta/Object.md but no document at any tier defines it as a per-Object characteristic; that gap is recorded as AO-023, and the row is marked accordingly.
Evidence is not one of Object's Core Characteristics at all, so it is not scored here; see Worked Example for the difference between the two absences.