Technology Decision Records
Publish sanitised consequential architecture decisions with context, alternatives, rationale, trade-offs and status where disclosure is safe.
Open institutional practice
Publish sanitised consequential architecture decisions with context, alternatives, rationale, trade-offs and status where disclosure is safe.
Use reproducible repository evidence—CI, tests, CodeQL, dependency automation, SBOM/provenance, release controls and documentation—rather than self-awarded engineering grades.
Benchmarks must publish task definition, dataset/test cases where lawful, environment, versions, metrics, repetitions, limitations and raw/aggregate results sufficient for reproduction.
Record material delivery/research lessons, corrective actions and methodology changes. Public versions are anonymised and do not expose client-confidential information.
Material errors receive dated correction notices; findings no longer supportable may be withdrawn/retracted with the original record retained where appropriate.
Research involving people or non-public data requires proportionate consent/lawful basis, minimisation, withdrawal handling, confidentiality, conflicts and publication-risk review.
Institute outputs receive stable canonical URLs, title/authoring body, publication/version date and suggested citation. DOI claims are made only if a DOI is actually registered.
Submitted public consultation responses are distinguished from drafts and published with the official consultation reference/evidence when permissible.
Track actual submitted/accepted contributions to standards, RFC/open-governance work and consultations; participation is not presented as standards-body endorsement.
Separate Raeburn-owned projects from external upstream contributions; accepted contributions require verifiable upstream evidence.