Claims hierarchy
We separate self-report, training, simulation, reviewed customer work, and customer acceptance. Those grades are never flattened into one generic “verified” badge.
Self-reported role, skill, or artifact.
“Verified capability” without validation.
Course completion or structured instructional participation.
“Performed customer work.”
Rubric-scored work in a controlled scenario.
“Client-accepted production experience.”
Contributor completed work on an actual customer project; expert review documented.
“Independently certified” if only internally reviewed.
Specific contributions reviewed and customer deliverables accepted, under permitted disclosure.
“Sole project owner” if only one subtask was performed.
Design safeguards
- • Issue receipts only after documented project completion or an appropriate bounded achievement; distinguish project result from individual contribution.
- • Require client permission before naming organizations or exposing deliverables; anonymized summaries by default.
- • Do not transfer customer-owned IP into a public portfolio; evidence may be metadata-only when necessary.
- • Support correction, revocation, and appeal; verifiers must see revoked or superseded state.
- • Never publish raw personnel reviews, internal confidence scores, or protected customer files without separately valid grounds.
Interoperability direction
When issuance is mature, MeritSOLV aims to use standards-based verifiable achievement models such as Open Badges 3.0 and CLR 2.0, with competency mapping (including NICE Framework for cybersecurity tasks where applicable). Adherence to a file format does not by itself validate the truth of a performance claim.
PathProof™ may present consented MeritSOLV Performance Receipts under contractual and privacy guardrails—as a separate evidence experience, not a substitute for delivery accountability.
