From shared challenge to evidenced improvement.
The benchmark method, the Readiness Mapper demonstration, and how a baseline becomes accountable response and demonstrated improvement rather than a standing score.
Declare the basis before assessing anything.
A benchmark result is only interpretable if you know what it covered. Every assessment therefore declares its subject, scope, evidence period, implementation profile and Framework version first, and those declarations travel with the result.
Sust.in is the planned workspace for private organisational evidence, responses, improvement actions and reporting. This page explains the developing method and demonstrates the interface.
Declared subject — the organisation, site, programme or place being examined.
Declared scope — what is inside and outside the examination boundary.
Evidence period — the dates the evidence covers.
Implementation profile — the jurisdictional, sector and cultural profile applied.
Framework version — the version of the Framework and Charter in force.
Prepare evidence, interpret the assessment, own the improvement.
The Mapper brings together declared scope, evidence coverage, contradictions and review status to help identify supported findings and next actions.
The public Mapper uses fictional data and the Prototype Mapper Configuration — September 2026.
Domain evidence coverage
Required routes coveredEvidence queue
Human review requiredEnergy intensity fell year-on-year, but the baseline boundary is not confirmed.
Worker participation in change decisions reported at two of three sites.
Concern response times improved; remedy outcomes are not recorded.
Pre-deployment review documented for one production line only.
Explore the tabs to follow evidence from coverage through review to response.
Open the Mapper DemoA baseline is the beginning of an obligation, not the end of one.
Benchmarking establishes what the evidence currently supports. Response is what the responsible actor does about it, including explanation, correction and remedy for the people affected. Improvement requires new evidence and demonstrated change over time.
Gaps, contradictions and limitations remain visible at every stage. A result that has been improved by narrowing its scope is recorded as exactly that.
- 01
Establish the basis
Declare subject, scope, evidence period, implementation profile and Framework version.
- 02
Define commitments
Convert shared concerns into commitments that can be acted upon and evidenced, each with an owner and an evidence route.
- 03
Benchmark
Assemble evidence with provenance. Coverage, gaps, contradictions and limitations are recorded rather than resolved silently.
- 04
Respond
Explanation, named ownership, correction and remedy that reach the people affected — not only an internal response record.
- 05
Improve
Improvement requires new evidence and demonstrated change against the same declared basis.
- 06
Contribute to shared learning
What worked, what failed and what the method got wrong returns to the Framework and the research agenda.
Sust.in is the planned home for private evidence preparation, response records, improvement actions and reporting. Create your Sust.in Profile ↗
Only eligible, governed results become public.
An organisational workspace is private by default. A result becomes public only where the organisation decides it should, the declarations are complete, and — for identifiable publication — documented consent exists.
Public result views are in development. Each released result will carry its declared scope, evidence period, Framework version and evidence coverage alongside the finding.
Private by default: nothing is published, compared or aggregated without an explicit decision.
Identifiable publication requires explicit, documented consent.
Every public view carries scope, period, profile, version and evidence coverage.
Cohorts too small to protect confidentiality are not published.
Corrections are published with the same prominence as the original.
Governed by the Ranking Policy and the Data Policy.
A structured tabletop discussion.
The protocol walks a chosen disruption through seven stages, from the critical function to what was learned. Its value is in the questions participants cannot answer, because those mark the dependencies and responsibilities that were never established.
Select a scenario, then work through the stages. The questions are deliberately the same across scenarios: the scenario frames them rather than changing them.
A core service becomes unavailable to the people who depend on it. The exercise asks who notices first, who is told, and who carries the consequence while the service is down.
Sustained heat degrades premises, equipment and the people working in them. The exercise asks which commitments quietly lapse, and whether that lapse is recorded anywhere.
A supplier a commitment depends on stops delivering. The exercise asks whether the dependency was on the record before the interruption, and who is accountable for it.
Staff availability falls sharply. The exercise asks which commitments are held by named individuals rather than by systems, and what happens when those individuals are absent.
Critical function
Tabletop questions for the selected scenario: Service outage
- Which function must continue, and for whom is it not substitutable?
- Who decided it was critical, and on what evidence?
- What level of service counts as continuing, as opposed to nominally available?
Dependencies
Tabletop questions for the selected scenario: Service outage
- Which people, suppliers, systems and infrastructure does the function rely on?
- Which dependencies are shared with other functions or other operators?
- Which dependencies are known only informally, by particular individuals?
Affected groups
Tabletop questions for the selected scenario: Service outage
- Who depends on this function most, and can substitute least?
- Who is likely to be affected first, and who last to be noticed?
- Whose needs were not represented when the arrangement was designed?
Minimum service
Tabletop questions for the selected scenario: Service outage
- What is the reduced-service condition, as distinct from total failure?
- How long can it be sustained, and what degrades next?
- Who is told what, when, and through which channel?
Response ownership
Tabletop questions for the selected scenario: Service outage
- Who owns the response while it is happening, not afterwards?
- What decisions can they take without escalation?
- What happens to ownership across shift, contract or organisational boundaries?
Recovery
Tabletop questions for the selected scenario: Service outage
- What does recovery actually restore, and what remains changed?
- Whose time, cost or risk pays for recovery?
- Is recovery capability demonstrated, or documented?
Learning
Tabletop questions for the selected scenario: Service outage
- What changed in practice, and can that change be evidenced?
- Was any dependency added to the record as a result?
- What did the exercise reveal about the protocol itself?
Record the discussion, unresolved questions and agreed follow-up actions.
i5Index situates eligible results within a governed coordinate system.
Versioned benchmark results may later be placed within comparable cohorts so an organisation, sector, community or region can understand position, evidence coverage and movement. Publication depends on declared scope, cohort rules, method version, evidence thresholds, contextual comparability and consent.
i5Index is in development. The concept preview explores how eligible results could be situated within a governed coordinate system.
Placement would depend on declared scope, cohort rules, method version, evidence thresholds, contextual comparability and consent.
- Evidence quality
- Evidence items carry provenance, dates and scope, and have passed accountable human review.
- Comparability
- Subject type, scope, evidence period, implementation profile and Framework version are compatible across the cohort.
- Cohort discipline
- A disclosed cohort definition, inclusion rules, minimum cohort size and disclosure controls that protect confidentiality.
- Governance
- Published methodology, version control, correction and appeal pathways, and consent for identifiable publication.
- Interpretation
- Reporting that shows distribution, uncertainty and evidence quality rather than a bare league position.
Finance and investment applications are treated as future applications until the evidence base and index methodology are validated. See the Ranking Policy.