Strict age assurance

What the clause says

Strict assurance is the top of the published scale. The public working draft on benchmarking gives it an external benchmark of at least ninety-nine point nine nine per cent classification accuracy.

What it supplies to a comparison

A strict claim is a claim about rare failures. The comparison needs a sample large enough to observe them, an attack assessment and a repeatable method, or it should not use the label.

Evidence to keep

• The sample size calculation for the rare failure rate.
• The independent test report and the attack potential assumed.

What the evidence looks like

For 6.1.5, the first artefact is The sample size calculation for the rare failure rate.. The second is The independent test report and the attack potential assumed.. If 6.1.5 has no first artefact, the practice is unproven at 6.1.5, and the report should record the absence rather than infer the practice from a policy.

Questions for the provider

1. Is the sample large enough to observe the failure this level is meant to exclude?
2. Who independently verified the figure?

How it connects to the draft

Strict age assurance belongs to 6 indicators of confidence, and it gives the analysis one fixed point: A strict claim is a claim about rare failures. The comparison needs a sample large enough to observe them, an attack assessment and a repeatable metho. A comparison that cannot place a result against 6.1.5 is measuring something the framework has not defined, and the report should say so.

In the register, 6.1.5 is read beside the unit that tests it, and where it sets an objective rather than a number, that unit turns the objective into a question and an evidence artefact.