1. Purpose
Domain Scoring addresses the evaluation of righteousness within institutional domains. It answers the question: To what extent does this institution or domain embody and practice righteousness?
This standard establishes the scoring methodologies for assessing domain-specific criteria, domain performance, and domain-specific scoring architectures, extending from the domain structures defined in Layer 4B.
2. Scope
This standard applies to all institutional domains defined within the RSS, including but not limited to:
- Healthcare
- Finance
- Education
- Law Enforcement
- Insurance
- Athletics
- Government
- Legal Services
- Social Services
- Media and Communications
- Transportation
- Energy and Utilities
- Agriculture
- Manufacturing
- Technology
- Real Estate
- Hospitality
- Arts and Culture
- Religious Institutions
- Nonprofit Organizations
- Other domains as defined in Layer 4B
This standard is universally applicable across all institutional contexts in which domain-specific righteousness is to be evaluated.
3. Normative References
The following documents are indispensable for the application of this standard:
- RSS 37001:2026 – Fundamentals Standard (Layer 1)
- RSS 37002:2026 – Foundation Standard (Layer 2)
- RSS 37003:2026 – Alignment Standard (Layer 3)
- RSS 37004:2026 – Structure Standard (Layer 4) – specifically Layer 4B (Institutional Domains)
- RSS 37005:2026 – Process Standard (Layer 5)
- RSS 37006:2026 – Assurance Standard (Layer 6, Main Catalog)
- RSS 37006-6.1:2026 – Scoring Framework
- RSS 37006-6.3:2026 – Role Scoring
All scoring methodologies defined in this standard shall be interpreted in a manner fully consistent with the axioms, foundational components, alignment principles, structural definitions, process standards, and scoring frameworks established in the referenced documents.
4. Core Content
Domain Scoring consists of three normative components:
4.1 Domain-Specific Criteria
Each institutional domain presents unique righteousness challenges, expectations, and impact areas. Domain-specific criteria shall be derived from the integration of universal RSS requirements with domain-specific structural and process definitions.
| Source | Contribution to Domain Criteria |
|---|---|
| Layer 1 – Axioms | Provides the foundational truths that apply to all institutional conduct. |
| Layer 2 – Foundational Components | Defines moral intent, ethical awareness, value consistency, responsibility ownership, and commitment to truthfulness as they apply to institutional conduct. |
| Layer 2 – Foundational Domains | Defines the domains (institutional conduct, relational justice, social responsibility, corrective action) within which institutions operate. |
| Layer 3 – Alignment Requirements | Defines value alignment, behavioral alignment, structural alignment, relational alignment, and corrective alignment specific to each domain. |
| Layer 4B – Domain Structure | Defines the specific systems, policies, procedures, and relationships of each domain. |
| Layer 5 – Domain Processes | Defines the standardized processes that each domain must follow to execute righteous actions. |
All domain-specific criteria shall be:
- Explicit – clearly articulated for each domain.
- Measurable – amenable to assessment through observable evidence.
- Consistent – applied uniformly across all institutions within the same domain.
- Contextually appropriate – reflecting the unique responsibilities, impact, and risks of the domain.
4.2 Domain Performance Scoring
Domain Performance Scoring evaluates the institution’s execution of its domain responsibilities against the domain-specific criteria.
This scoring assesses four dimensions:
| Dimension | Description |
|---|---|
| Institutional Virtue | The extent to which the institution embodies the core virtues (love, wisdom, respect for law, honesty, integrity, fairness, justice, reflection, acknowledgment, correction, humility, respect) in its policies, practices, and culture. |
| Institutional Alignment | The consistency between institutional policies, practices, and outcomes. Misalignment between stated values and actual conduct constitutes a righteous failure that must be addressed. |
| Institutional Impact | The effect of institutional operations on individuals (clients, employees, community members), on other institutions, and on society at large. Positive impact elevates scores; negative impact reduces them. |
| Institutional Improvement | The institution’s demonstrated commitment to growing in righteousness over time. This includes responsiveness to feedback, implementation of corrective actions, and continuous refinement of policies and practices. |
4.3 Domain-Specific Scoring Architectures
Each domain shall possess its own scoring architecture, which is detailed in the individual domain modules defined in Layer 4B. These architectures include, but are not limited to:
| Domain | Scoring Focus Areas |
|---|---|
| Healthcare Scoring | Patient care quality, ethical treatment, patient rights, confidentiality, informed consent, equity of access, medical ethics, safety protocols, accountability for outcomes. |
| Finance Scoring | Transparency, fiduciary duty, fair lending, anti-fraud measures, ethical investment, consumer protection, regulatory compliance, risk management, accountability to stakeholders. |
| Education Scoring | Quality of instruction, student wellbeing, fairness in assessment, inclusivity, academic integrity, teacher conduct, administrative accountability, community engagement. |
| Law Enforcement Scoring | Use of force, due process, equal protection, transparency, accountability, community relations, integrity in investigations, respect for rights, corrective action. |
| Insurance Scoring | Fair underwriting, honest claims processing, transparency in policies, customer protection, accountability in settlements, anti-fraud measures, ethical sales practices. |
| Athletics Scoring | Fair competition, anti-doping, athlete welfare, transparency in governance, integrity in officiating, respect for opponents, accountability to fans and communities. |
| Government Scoring | Public trust, transparency in decision-making, accountability to citizens, fairness in policy, integrity in administration, respect for rule of law, responsiveness to public needs. |
| Legal Services Scoring | Access to justice, ethical conduct, client confidentiality, integrity in representation, transparency in fees, accountability to courts and clients. |
| Technology Scoring | Data privacy, algorithmic fairness, transparency in AI, user protection, accountability for impacts, respect for human rights, ethical innovation. |
Each domain-specific scoring architecture shall:
- Define the applicable criteria drawn from the sources listed in 4.1.
- Establish the scoring scale (binary, ordinal, interval, or weighted) appropriate to the domain.
- Specify the verification rules for each scoring activity.
- Identify the integrity requirements necessary to ensure fair and accurate domain scoring.
- Integrate with role scoring for all roles operating within the domain.
5. Relationship to Other Layer 6 Components
| Component | How It Relies on 6.4 |
|---|---|
| 6.1 – Scoring Framework | Provides the foundational inputs, criteria, scales, verification rules, and integrity requirements applied in all Domain Scoring activities. |
| 6.2 – People Scoring | Provides individual virtue assessments for individuals within the domain, which contribute to the overall domain righteousness assessment. |
| 6.3 – Role Scoring | Provides role-specific scores for all roles operating within the domain. Domain scoring aggregates role scores across the domain. |
| 6.5 – Composite Scoring | Domain Scores are aggregated as a distinct input into composite righteousness assessments for institutions and broader systems. |
End of RSS 37006-6.4:2026 – Domain Scoring