Indicators for inference systems

What the clause says

For an inference system the indicator reflects the validity of the credential and the strength of the rule that turns it into an age statement. The framework treats the inference as indirect evidence.

What it supplies to a comparison

An inference comparison should test the credential and the rule separately. A genuine credential with a loose rule can produce a confident and wrong answer.

Evidence to keep

• The inference rule and the authority behind it.
• The credential validation result and the failure cases.

What the evidence looks like

For 6.2.3, the first artefact is The inference rule and the authority behind it.. The second is The credential validation result and the failure cases.. If 6.2.3 has no first artefact, the practice is unproven at 6.2.3, and the report should record the absence rather than infer the practice from a policy.

Questions for the provider

1. What makes this inference valid rather than merely plausible?
2. Which failures would the credential check not catch?

How it connects to the draft

Indicators for inference systems belongs to 6 indicators of confidence, and it gives the analysis one fixed point: An inference comparison should test the credential and the rule separately. A genuine credential with a loose rule can produce a confident and wrong a. A comparison that cannot place a result against 6.2.3 is measuring something the framework has not defined, and the report should say so.

In the register, 6.2.3 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.