Case and pilot records, the contexts in which the Framework is applied, the open research agenda, released publications, and how to contribute.
The library is being prepared for reviewed case and pilot records. Publication follows participant review and consent.
Pilot reporting records method performance rather than participant performance, unless the participant chooses otherwise and consents to identifiable publication.
The most valuable output of an early pilot is often where the Framework proved unintelligible, where required evidence did not exist, or where a requirement could not be acted upon in that context.
An organisation can explore the public Framework and demonstrations without an account. Operational mapping, evidence preparation, response and improvement begin with a Sust.in Profile.
01
Establish the organisation, declared context and assessment scope.
02
Bring together organisational records, affected-person experience and relevant evidence for review.
03
Use the Framework in a specific operating or place-based context and contribute reviewed learning back to i5Benchmark.
The Framework is applied at four scales. Each declares its own subject and scope and uses the same domains, evidence logic and judgement boundaries. Filter to see how the method changes — and what stays fixed.
4 shown
A declared subject with an operating boundary: an organisation, a site, or a defined part of either. Where operations, workers or impacts fall outside the boundary, that exclusion is recorded as a limitation rather than left implicit. Output is an evidence position, open contradictions, a value-distribution statement and owned improvement actions.
Some gaps are not organisational failures but shared constraints in skills supply, infrastructure, supplier capability or regulatory clarity. Collective examination makes those patterns visible while individual results stay confidential, using disclosed inclusion rules, minimum cohort sizes and disclosure controls.
A place is not a single organisation with one accountable owner. Responsibility is distributed across operators, authorities, infrastructure providers and communities. Place-based use concentrates on where burden and benefit land, which systems are depended upon, and who can act on the findings.
The Framework asserts that certain domains, evidence routes and judgement boundaries produce a more defensible account of industrial progress than the alternatives. That is a testable claim, and the most useful contributions challenge the structure rather than confirm it.
The research programme is organised around the parts of the Framework that are least secure. Each line of enquiry corresponds to a methodological commitment that could turn out to be wrong.
Contributions from practitioners are treated as research evidence rather than testimonials: what happened, in what context, with what limitations.
Does the separation of three outcome domains and two enabling domains hold across sectors and contexts, and where does it break down?
Which evidence routes reliably support which requirement types, and how should contradiction between routes constrain a finding?
What makes a requirement intelligible and legitimate outside the policy tradition it originated in, and how is that tested rather than assumed?
Under what conditions can assessments be aggregated without producing precision the underlying evidence cannot support?
Open questions are published before answers are available.
Negative and inconclusive findings are recorded, not discarded.
Practitioner and local knowledge is attributed and dated like any other source.
External partners and academic institutions are named only when their role and permission for public disclosure are confirmed.
Framework Version 2.0 · In development
Draft domain and requirement architecture, evidence logic and judgement boundaries. Cite as work in development.
Charter Draft 0.9 · Public review
The constitutional baseline and the foundation for developing the Framework: definition, purpose, principles, domain architecture and methodological commitments. The complete Charter is the PDF; the Framework page carries an overview. Cite as a draft.
Both entries are working material published for review, not finished publications. Each output is listed once it exists in a citable form, and its status line states how far it has actually got, so a citation trail is never created for material that may still change substantially.
Contributions and review comments can be sent to hello@sust.in. Please indicate which route applies, and whether you are content to be acknowledged as a contributor.
Do not send confidential, personal or commercially sensitive material in an initial message. Where a contribution requires it, an appropriate arrangement will be agreed first.
Evidence, analysis or critique addressing one of the four agenda questions. Please state the question, your method and your limitations.
Comments on Foundational Design Charter Draft 0.9. Please indicate the commitment number and the context you are writing from.
Testing the Framework in real operating conditions, including where it fails. Protocols are developed with participants.
