Demonstrated capability within a defined boundary.
Conformance under Trust-State Standard™ v2.5.1 is established against a specific Standard release, Conformance Profile, conformance boundary, implementation state, and body of evidence.
Conformance is not a maturity score.
It is a declaration of demonstrated capability within a defined boundary.
A valid conformance claim identifies:
Deterministic Admissibility
Determines whether a proposed consequence-bearing action satisfies applicable governing conditions.
Profile I establishes deterministic admissibility. It does not establish deterministic enforcement.
Deterministic Enforcement
Satisfies Profile I and additionally derives execution eligibility and prevents non-eligible actions from crossing the governed execution boundary.
Profile II determines and enforces.
Deterministic Continuity and Recomputation
Satisfies Profiles I and II and additionally governs continued validity across material change, revocation, and expiration, while supporting independent recomputation and historical replay.
Profile III determines, enforces, maintains, and reproduces.
Profile II inherits applicable mandatory requirements of Profile I.
Profile III inherits applicable mandatory requirements of Profiles I and II.
A higher-profile implementation must still demonstrate the additional capabilities required by that higher profile.
Partial implementation of a profile does not constitute conformity with that profile.
Every conformance claim is bounded.
The declared boundary identifies the scope within which conformity has been demonstrated and may include:
Conformance for one action class or operational boundary does not imply conformity outside that declared scope.
Conformance must be supported by objectively determinable evidence.
Evidence may include:
Vendor assertion, design intention, reputation, or policy language alone does not establish conformity.
Conformance testing includes negative conditions sufficient to demonstrate that invalid or incomplete governing conditions do not produce improper affirmative outcomes.
Applicable tests may include:
A conforming implementation may consume a governed output produced by another implementation operating under a different Conformance Profile.
A higher-profile implementation must not infer satisfaction of its own requirements solely from the profile or conformance status of the supplying implementation.
The consuming implementation remains responsible for establishing that the supplied governance state or artifact satisfies the invariants required by its own profile and conformance boundary.
Conformance claims are:
Preferred public claim structure:
Conforms to Trust-State Standard v2.5.1, Profile [I/II/III], within the declared conformance boundary identified in [record or identifier].
Unqualified claims such as “Trust-State® compliant” or “fully Trust-State compliant” should not be used without an associated record identifying the applicable Standard version, Conformance Profile, and boundary.
Conformance and certification are distinct.
Conformance is demonstrated satisfaction of the normative requirements applicable to a declared profile and boundary.
Certification is a formal third-party determination regarding that conformity.
An implementation may conform without being certified unless another governing requirement mandates certification.
Trust-State conformance does not, by itself, establish:
Conformance concerns the deterministic governance mechanism and capability demonstrated within the declared boundary.
The authoritative form of Trust-State Standard™ v2.5.1 is the canonical published PDF retained in the Releases archive.