Help make investigations portable
Bring a case, an implementation, or a careful review
The next stage is proving that shared investigative meaning survives exchange. Contributions are most useful when they expose an ambiguity, demonstrate a real investigation need, or test a boundary between Core and another standard.
Useful first contributions
- Practitioners: describe a synthetic investigation where an assessment changed, evidence was unavailable, or two investigators disagreed.
- Implementers: build a reader or exporter independently and report the meaning preserved or lost.
- Researchers: evaluate whether Core supports review, handoff, and reproducibility in a defined task.
- Standards specialists: test the CASE/UCO and CACAO boundaries with the reference cases.
- Domain editors: review a legacy question's proposition, context, evidence requirements, and source quality before proposing a public profile.
Make a proposal reviewable
- Identify the artifact and version, the problem, and the expected behavior.
- Include a minimal synthetic example with both successful and failing cases where relevant.
- Explain compatibility, privacy, and security implications, plus alternatives considered.
- State which Core requirements or binding rules are affected and what remains untested.
- Disclose relevant affiliations and retain source attribution.
Do not include credentials, confidential incident data, or evidence you cannot share. A public standard does not require public disclosure of investigations. Use the repository's published security-reporting instructions for a vulnerability rather than a public incident-data dump.
What happens next
Repository review can improve this implementation candidate. Formal stewardship and independent review follow the governance proposal once adopted. A merged contribution is not a certification, partnership, or governance appointment.
Review and adoption plan · Candidate artifacts · Legacy questions awaiting semantic review