EV-01DORA profile passport
Current worked object.
Shows what is actually built and what remains experimental.
Reviewer route / Evidence-first evaluation
Review the discipline, not the promise.
Start with the claim boundary, then inspect the worked profile, mapper, verifier and challenge workflow.
This page exists for funders, standards people, implementers, public-interest reviewers and technically literate adopters who need to understand what is real today.
01 / Route
Six stops before trust.
A serious reviewer should not have to guess where to start.
01
Read the boundary.
Understand what ActProof can and cannot claim.
02
Inspect the passport.
Check profile identity, source state, maturity and legal claim.
03
Check source artefacts.
Review what official material was pinned.
04
Read the mapper.
Look for judgement points and unsupported mappings.
05
Run the verifier.
Hash files locally and confirm the source-binding claim.
06
Open a challenge.
If something is wrong, record the dispute precisely.
02 / What to inspect
Evidence should be easier to find than persuasion.
The project is strongest when its artefacts are inspectable without private explanation.
EV-02Mapper workpaper
Interpretation surface.
Shows where legal text became operational profile fields.
EV-03Verifier
Local reproducibility.
Checks source binding locally without file upload or backend.
EV-04Refusals
Anti-overclaim discipline.
Shows why the project is not pretending to certify compliance.
03 / Review risks
The risks are visible because the project is honest.
Early infrastructure should not hide unresolved questions. It should make them inspectable.
| Risk | Why it matters | Current answer | Next hardening step |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal currentness | Sources can change | Pinned artefacts show source state, not current law | Add currentness review workflow |
| Mapping completeness | Fields can omit source-supported requirements | Mapper workpaper makes omissions challengeable | External review and challenge templates |
| Adoption ambiguity | Users may mistake verification for compliance | Claim boundary is repeated across pages | Require boundary in profile packs |
| Maintenance burden | Public profiles require governance | Maturity ladder and challenge states | Versioned governance records |
04 / Boundary
The review starts and ends with bounded claims.
If the boundary disappears, the project becomes ordinary compliance-tech. If the boundary remains, it becomes public infrastructure.
This layer can show
- official source artefacts named and hashed
- field provenance, mapper notes and reproducibility
- schema divergence against a public reference profile
- where interpretation entered the machine profile
This layer cannot show
- legal approval or supervisory acceptance
- that a filing, firm or vendor is compliant
- that a mapping is legally complete without review
- that pinned sources are automatically the latest legal state