Protocol Documentation · VFS v2.4
Validation &
Forensic Standards
VFS is a structured protocol for producing decisions that are defensible under audit, stress-testable under pressure, and traceable across time. It does not optimise for speed. It optimises for integrity.
A framework for decisions that cannot afford to fail
Most decisions fail not because of wrong conclusions, but because of structural defects: missing evidence, unverified authority, unresolved constraints, or undocumented reasoning.
VFS treats every decision as a document that must survive external challenge. It applies forensic standards borrowed from legal evidentiary practice and applies them to business, infrastructure, and governance contexts.
Core Principle
"A decision made without a framework cannot be validated. A decision that cannot be validated cannot be defended. A decision that cannot be defended should not be made."
— VFS Founding Doctrine
A single-sentence declaration of what is being decided. Ambiguous statements are returned for clarification before intake proceeds.
Who holds the authority to make this decision. Unverified authority claims trigger an immediate escalation flag.
All supporting documents, data, and third-party analysis submitted for validation. Unsourced assertions are rejected.
Legal, financial, operational, and temporal constraints governing the decision space. Each constraint must be sourced.
Classification of decision reversibility and impact magnitude. Determines which validation pathway applies.
Intake & Classification
The 5-field form is completed. The decision is classified by type, authority level, and consequence threshold. Incomplete intake returns to originator.
Evidence Audit
All submitted evidence is graded against the evidence standard. Inadmissible or unsourced material is flagged. The decision cannot proceed on ungraded evidence.
Constraint Verification
Each constraint in the matrix is independently verified. Constraints that cannot be sourced are treated as unknown, not assumed.
Scenario Stress Test
The decision is tested against three adversarial scenarios: best-case, base-case, and structural failure. Each scenario must resolve without catastrophic outcome.
Veto Assessment
A formal veto check is conducted. If evidence is insufficient, authority is unclear, or constraints are unresolved, a veto is issued and documented.
Decision Packet Output
The validated decision is packaged with all evidence, constraint documentation, findings, risk flags, and the validation signature. This is the live document.
VFS applies a four-grade evidence classification derived from the Daubert standard for expert testimony admissibility. All evidence submitted is graded before the validation process begins.
Primary
Direct, verifiable, independently sourced. Highest weight.
Secondary
Derived from primary sources. Acceptable with attribution.
Tertiary
Synthesised or inferred. Requires supporting Grade A or B evidence.
Inadmissible
Opinion, assertion, or unsourced claim. Rejected from validation process.
Findings
- —Summary statement of validated facts
- —Evidence grade breakdown
- —Constraint resolution status
- —Authority confirmation
Risk Flags
- —Unresolved constraints listed
- —Evidence gaps documented
- —Scenario failure modes noted
- —Escalation triggers identified
Veto Logic
- —Veto condition statement (if issued)
- —Evidence standard not met
- —Authority unclear or disputed
- —Constraint unresolvable in timeframe