Published Standard · Version 1.0
Before a programme trusts a verification, it needs to know exactly what verification means. This is that document. It is versioned, it is public, and you are welcome to send it to your board, your council or your own funders.
Published pre-launch. This version governs pilot engagements. It has not yet been applied to a completed production engagement.
Pursuing DFSA Innovation Testing Licence · DIFC, Dubai
Section 1
Five categories of evidence. Each one can demonstrate something specific and cannot demonstrate something else. A verifier states which categories were relied on for every finding.
Source repository at a named commit, a deployed address or endpoint, a signed document, a published paper.
Accounting exports, payroll records, bank statements, payment processor reports, contract management exports.
A written confirmation from a counterparty, customer, employer or partner, obtained directly by the verifier.
A public deployment, a public filing, a company register entry, a live product the verifier can use.
Progress notes, decks, narrative updates, screenshots supplied by the assessed party.
Section 2
What is sufficient to corroborate each type of deliverable, and what is not. A milestone that cannot be mapped to one of these types is defined explicitly at scoping, in writing, before work starts.
Sufficient to Corroborate
Not Sufficient
Screenshots, a demo video, or a description of the code without access to the code itself.
Sufficient to Corroborate
Not Sufficient
A transaction hash or URL supplied without the verifier confirming what is actually running there.
Sufficient to Corroborate
Not Sufficient
A dashboard screenshot, a spreadsheet, or a founder-stated figure. Note that this is reconciliation, not an audit of financial statements.
Sufficient to Corroborate
Not Sufficient
A profile page, an announcement post, or an offer letter that was never accepted.
Sufficient to Corroborate
Not Sufficient
A logo on a website, a joint announcement, or a forwarded email chain.
Sufficient to Corroborate
Not Sufficient
A preprint described as peer reviewed, or an output whose scope was never defined at milestone definition.
Sufficient to Corroborate
Not Sufficient
A word count, a table of contents, or a private draft that is not accessible to the intended audience.
Every change to this standard is published here with a version number and a date before it takes effect. An engagement is governed by the version in force on the day the milestone was defined, so a standard cannot change underneath work already in progress.
Section 3
There are exactly three. There is no partial pass, no percentage and no score on a verification, because a milestone was either evidenced to the published threshold or it was not.
This section matters more than the rest. A verification business that overstates what it can establish is worth less than no verification at all, because a funder would then rely on it.
Section 5
Independence is the whole product. A verifier who is conflicted produces a finding that is worth nothing, so the disqualifying conditions are published rather than described in general terms.
A calibrated expert drawn from the verification pool, matched by sector and by the milestone type under review. Verifiers are named to the programme and to the grantee, and their calibration status is on the record.
A verifier is disqualified where they hold or have held equity, tokens, debt or an advisory position in the grantee, have worked for or with the grantee inside the last 24 months, are related to a founder or officer, or have an open commercial discussion with the grantee.
A verifier is disqualified where they sit on the programme's selection committee, council or board, where they authored the grant application, or where their compensation varies with the outcome of the finding. Verifier pay is fixed by tier and is identical whatever the finding is.
Assessment review is blind to grantee identity where the evidence permits it. Milestone verification frequently cannot be blind, because confirming a deployment or a counterparty requires identity. Where blindness is not possible we say so on the finding rather than pretend otherwise.
Every verifier signs a conflict declaration per engagement. Any conflict discovered mid-engagement triggers immediate recusal, the finding is voided and the milestone is reassigned at our cost.
Who funds the tie break: The tie break is funded from a reserve held back from the engagement fee, not billed to the programme and never billed to the grantee. Neither party pays more because experts disagreed, so nobody has a financial reason to avoid a second opinion.
Section 7
The verified party may appeal any finding. So may the programme.
Notice
Within 10 business days of the finding being issued
The appellant files the specific ground: a factual error, evidence that was supplied but not considered, a threshold applied incorrectly, or an undeclared conflict.
Acknowledgement
2 business days
We acknowledge, confirm the ground is within scope and freeze any pending release the programme has linked to the finding.
Review
10 business days
A verifier who took no part in the original engagement reviews the original evidence, the written reasons and the appeal ground.
Outcome
Issued at the end of review
Upheld, amended or overturned, with written reasons. An overturned finding is marked as overturned on the permanent record and is never erased.
Escalation
Within 10 business days of the outcome
Where a conflict was found, or the ground was procedural, the matter escalates to the platform review panel and the panel's decision is published in redacted form.
Disagreeing with a correctly reached finding is not a ground of appeal. Neither is a preference for a different verifier.
Attestation-based record keeping is an established pattern in grant tooling, so programme operators reasonably ask how a verification is anchored. Here is exactly what is recorded, what is public, what never leaves the platform, and how a third party checks a finding without asking us.
| What Is Recorded | Where It Lives | Who Can See It | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| That a verification engagement was opened | Anchored | Public | A milestone identifier, the programme identifier and a timestamp. No evidence and no narrative. |
| The finding: Corroborated, Contradicted or Unable To Verify | Anchored | Public | The outcome, the standard version applied, the verifier tier and a timestamp. |
| A cryptographic digest of the written reasons | Anchored | Public | A hash only. Anyone holding the reasons document can confirm it is the one that was recorded, and nobody can read it from the hash. |
| The written reasons themselves | Off Chain | Programme and Parties | Held in the platform record, released to the programme and the verified party, and exportable by both. |
| The evidence the grantee submitted | Off Chain | Parties Only | Never anchored, never published. Confidential material stays confidential by design, not by policy alone. |
| Verifier identity | Off Chain | Programme and Parties | Disclosed to the programme and the grantee for conflict checking. The public record carries the tier and calibration status, not a name. |
| Appeals and overturned findings | Anchored | Public | An overturn is recorded as a new entry referencing the original. Nothing is deleted or rewritten. |
That a verification engagement was opened
Anchored · Public
A milestone identifier, the programme identifier and a timestamp. No evidence and no narrative.
The finding: Corroborated, Contradicted or Unable To Verify
Anchored · Public
The outcome, the standard version applied, the verifier tier and a timestamp.
A cryptographic digest of the written reasons
Anchored · Public
A hash only. Anyone holding the reasons document can confirm it is the one that was recorded, and nobody can read it from the hash.
The written reasons themselves
Off Chain · Programme and Parties
Held in the platform record, released to the programme and the verified party, and exportable by both.
The evidence the grantee submitted
Off Chain · Parties Only
Never anchored, never published. Confidential material stays confidential by design, not by policy alone.
Verifier identity
Off Chain · Programme and Parties
Disclosed to the programme and the grantee for conflict checking. The public record carries the tier and calibration status, not a name.
Appeals and overturned findings
Anchored · Public
An overturn is recorded as a new entry referencing the original. Nothing is deleted or rewritten.
The rules a finding is produced under are published in the verification standard, and the division of labour between tooling and people is published in the methodology.
Every change to this standard is published here with a version number and a date before it takes effect. An engagement is governed by the version in force on the day the milestone was defined, so a standard cannot change underneath work already in progress.
Version 1.0
31 August 2026
First published standard: evidence taxonomy, thresholds for seven milestone types, three defined outcomes, independence and conflict rules, tie-break funding, and the appeals timetable.
Questions on the standard, or a correction to it, go to hello@foundergrade.ai. Related reading: the methodology, the rubric and data handling for programmes.
For Programmes
A pilot applies this document to milestones you already fund, and tells you where your own definitions need tightening.
Pursuing DFSA Innovation Testing Licence · DIFC, Dubai
