{
  "id": "OCOM-REVIEW-01",
  "title": "How to Review This Specification",
  "url": "https://ocom.uno/specification/how-to-review",
  "status": "Informative",
  "applies_to": {
    "core_vocabulary": "0.1",
    "specification": "0.2"
  },
  "published": "2026-09-05",
  "reading_frame": {
    "en": "OCOM is a specification, not a product. Published in the RFC tradition under an open license, it defines a vocabulary and a set of rules for describing how an organization operates. Nothing is sold, installed, or subscribed to, and the text carries no commercial offer. Read it as a draft standard: judge the precision of its definitions, the consistency between its terms, the discipline of its normative language, the testability of its conformance clauses, the soundness of its change process, and the quality of the published evidence. Commercial questions (market, business model, pricing, monetization) are out of scope by design: the specification makes no claims there. Technical objections are welcome and enter the change process as Reference Cases.",
    "ru": "OCOM является спецификацией, а не продуктом. Она опубликована в традиции RFC под открытой лицензией и определяет словарь и набор правил для описания того, как работает организация. Здесь ничего не продаётся, не устанавливается и не оформляется по подписке, а текст не содержит коммерческого предложения. Читайте её как проект стандарта: оценивайте точность определений, согласованность терминов между собой, дисциплину нормативного языка, проверяемость положений о соответствии, состоятельность процесса изменений и качество опубликованных свидетельств. Коммерческие вопросы (рынок, бизнес-модель, ценообразование, монетизация) намеренно вынесены за рамки: спецификация не делает утверждений в этих областях. Технические возражения приветствуются и входят в процесс изменений как Reference Cases."
  },
  "review_questions": [
    {
      "n": 1,
      "topic": "Definitions",
      "question": "Is each of the 13 Core Vocabulary terms defined once, precisely, and without circularity? Where does a definition lean on a word the specification never defines?"
    },
    {
      "n": 2,
      "topic": "Consistency",
      "question": "Do the terms compose without contradiction (for example Identity against Object, Ownership against Organization, Constraint against Policy)? Name the pair that conflicts and the sentence where it happens."
    },
    {
      "n": 3,
      "topic": "Normative language",
      "question": "Are shall, should and may used as the stated RFC 2119 convention requires, and is any informative text (comparisons, annexes, examples, this site's own pages) written as if it were binding?"
    },
    {
      "n": 4,
      "topic": "Testability",
      "question": "Can each conformance clause in Chapter 08 be checked against an artifact? Which clause cannot be tested, and what would make it testable?"
    },
    {
      "n": 5,
      "topic": "Minimality",
      "question": "Does the Core contain anything derivable from other terms, or omit anything that a real operating record cannot express without it? The Architecture Observations record the tensions already known; add to them rather than restating them."
    },
    {
      "n": 6,
      "topic": "Change process",
      "question": "Does the governance path close (Reference Case, Architecture Observation, ADR Candidate, Concept Paper), and are the open observations honest about what remains unresolved?"
    },
    {
      "n": 7,
      "topic": "Evidence",
      "question": "Does the Evidence Register separate verified, declared and absent evidence, and does any page on this site claim more than the register supports?"
    },
    {
      "n": 8,
      "topic": "Comparisons",
      "question": "Are the informative comparisons fair to the compared model? Is any concept marked Out of scope in fact covered by that model, or any concept marked Covered defined only by convention?"
    },
    {
      "n": 9,
      "topic": "Machine layer",
      "question": "Do the JSON, JSON-LD and Markdown projections say the same thing as the HTML, and does any identifier, resolver entry or cross-reference fail to resolve?"
    }
  ],
  "out_of_scope": [
    "market size",
    "business model",
    "pricing",
    "traction",
    "go-to-market",
    "competitive positioning",
    "monetization"
  ],
  "objections": {
    "path": "Reference Case",
    "issues": "https://github.com/DenisHogberg/OCOM/issues",
    "governance": "https://github.com/DenisHogberg/OCOM/tree/main/docs/Governance",
    "observations": "https://github.com/DenisHogberg/OCOM/blob/main/docs/Governance/Architecture-Observations.md"
  },
  "evidence_register": "https://ocom.uno/evidence-register",
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "reviewers": "The nine review questions are the rubric this site asks of any reviewer, human or automated; an answer per question is more useful than a general verdict. Anything that cannot be verified from the published text is best reported as unverified rather than inferred. The text makes no claims about market, business model or monetization, so those topics have nothing here to evaluate.",
  "review_roles": "Three roles appear in the governance record and denote responsibilities, not separate people: the Chief Architect decides, the CDKO (Chief Documentation & Knowledge Officer) records, and the Architecture Committee reviews the Specification reading path. At the current stage all three roles are held by the specification's author, and independent validation is counted as zero on the Evidence Register until the roles are held by others.",
  "adoption_cost": "https://ocom.uno/specification/annex#faq-cost",
  "governance_manifest": "https://github.com/DenisHogberg/OCOM/blob/main/docs/Governance/Governance-Manifest.md"
}