1. Purpose
Composite Scoring defines the methodologies for integrating multiple discrete scores into a single, unified assessment. It answers the question: What is the overall righteousness of this individual, role, institution, or domain when all scoring types are considered together?
This standard establishes the aggregation methodology, composite score applications, and the role of composite scoring as the highest-level assurance mechanism within the RSS.
2. Scope
This standard applies to all situations requiring a holistic assessment of righteousness across individuals, roles, institutions, and domains, including:
- Audits – comprehensive righteousness evaluations.
- Certifications – formal recognition of meeting RSS standards.
- Evaluations – ongoing righteousness performance assessments.
- Restoration planning – identifying systemic weaknesses requiring corrective action.
This standard is universally applicable across all entities subject to multiple scoring types within the RSS.
3. Normative References
The following documents are indispensable for the application of this standard:
- RSS 37006:2026 – Assurance Standard (Layer 6, Main Catalog)
- RSS 37006-6.1:2026 – Scoring Framework
- RSS 37006-6.2:2026 – People Scoring
- RSS 37006-6.3:2026 – Role Scoring
- RSS 37006-6.4:2026 – Domain Scoring
- RSS 37007:2026 – Restoration Standard (Layer 7)
All composite scoring methodologies defined in this standard shall be interpreted in a manner fully consistent with the scoring inputs, criteria, scales, verification rules, and integrity requirements established in the referenced documents.
4. Core Content
Composite Scoring consists of three normative components:
4.1 Aggregation Methodology
Composite scoring shall aggregate multiple discrete scoring types into a unified assessment.
The primary scoring types to be aggregated include:
| Scoring Type | Source | Description |
|---|---|---|
| People Scores | 6.2 | Individual righteousness scores (Personal Virtue, Behavioral Alignment, Corrective Action, Transparency and Accountability). |
| Role Scores | 6.3 | Role-specific righteousness scores (Role Fidelity, Role Integrity, Role Impact, Role Improvement). |
| Domain Scores | 6.4 | Institutional domain righteousness scores (Institutional Virtue, Institutional Alignment, Institutional Impact, Institutional Improvement). |
| Institutional Scores | 6.3 + 6.4 | Combined scores for institutions, aggregating role and domain assessments. |
Aggregation shall follow defined rules for:
| Rule | Description |
|---|---|
| Weighting | Determining the relative importance of different scoring types according to context, purpose, and the entity being assessed. Weightings shall be explicitly defined, justified, and documented before aggregation. |
| Normalization | Ensuring that scores derived from different scales (binary, ordinal, interval, weighted) are rendered comparable. Normalization shall follow established mathematical and statistical methods appropriate to the scoring types involved. |
| Integration | Combining discrete scores into a coherent and meaningful overall assessment. Integration shall consider the relationships and interdependencies among different scoring types, avoiding double-counting or omission of critical factors. |
All aggregation activities shall be:
- Transparent – methodologies and weightings shall be publicly accessible.
- Reproducible – the same inputs shall produce the same composite scores when processed independently.
- Auditable – all aggregation steps shall be documented and verifiable.
4.2 Composite Score Applications
Composite scores shall be used for the following applications:
| Application | Description |
|---|---|
| Audits | Comprehensive evaluations of righteousness across individuals, roles, institutions, and domains. Composite scores provide a holistic picture of righteousness performance, identifying both strengths and weaknesses. |
| Certifications | Formal recognition that an individual, role, institution, or domain meets RSS righteousness standards. Composite scores serve as the primary basis for certification decisions, with specific thresholds defined for each certification level. |
| Evaluations | Ongoing assessments of righteousness performance over time. Composite scores enable tracking of progress, identification of trends, and early detection of emerging issues. |
| Restoration Planning | Identifying systemic weaknesses requiring corrective action and tracking progress over time. Composite scores inform restoration priorities, resource allocation, and recovery timelines. |
For each application, the composite score shall be accompanied by:
- A breakdown of component scores (People, Role, Domain, Institutional).
- An explanation of the aggregation methodology used.
- A summary of strengths and areas for improvement.
- Recommendations for corrective action (when applicable).
4.3 The Highest-Level Assurance Mechanism
Composite scoring constitutes the highest-level assurance mechanism within the RSS.
It provides a holistic, integrated picture of righteousness that transcends individual components. This mechanism serves three critical functions:
| Function | Description |
|---|---|
| Systemic Integration | Composite scoring ensures that righteousness is not assessed in isolation but rather as an integrated whole across individuals, roles, institutions, and domains. |
| Interpretation Framework | A high composite score indicates that righteousness is consistently demonstrated across all levels—individual, role, institutional, and domain. A low composite score indicates systemic deficiencies requiring comprehensive restoration, as further addressed in Layer 7. |
| Accountability Anchor | Composite scoring provides a single, unambiguous measure of righteousness performance that can be used for reporting, certification, regulatory compliance, and public accountability. |
The interpretation of composite scores shall follow these general guidelines:
| Composite Score Range | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| High (e.g., 80–100) | Righteousness is consistently demonstrated across all levels. Minor, isolated issues may exist but do not materially affect overall righteousness. |
| Medium (e.g., 50–79) | Righteousness is present but inconsistent. Moderate gaps exist in one or more areas requiring attention and corrective action. |
| Low (e.g., 0–49) | Righteousness is systemically compromised. Comprehensive restoration is required across multiple levels, as addressed in Layer 7. |
Note: Specific thresholds shall be defined for each application context and certification level in the relevant domain and role modules.
5. Relationship to Other Layer 6 Components
| Component | How It Relates to 6.5 |
|---|---|
| 6.1 – Scoring Framework | Provides the foundational inputs, criteria, scales, verification rules, and integrity requirements that underpin all composite scoring activities. |
| 6.2 – People Scoring | Provides the individual righteousness scores that serve as a key input to composite assessments. |
| 6.3 – Role Scoring | Provides the role-specific righteousness scores that are aggregated into composite assessments. |
| 6.4 – Domain Scoring | Provides the institutional domain righteousness scores that are aggregated into composite assessments. |
6. Relationship to Layer 7 – Restoration
Layer 6.5 – Composite Scoring serves as the primary input to Layer 7 – Restoration.
| Aspect | How Layer 6.5 Informs Layer 7 |
|---|---|
| Failure Identification | Composite and component scores identify where righteousness has been compromised and at which level (individual, role, institutional, domain). |
| Restoration Priorities | The relative weight and severity of component scores guide restoration planning, ensuring that the most critical failures are addressed first. |
| Progress Tracking | Re-assessment through composite scoring tracks the effectiveness of restoration efforts over time. |
| Certification Readiness | Composite scores provide the basis for determining when restoration is complete and certification can be granted. |
End of RSS 37006-6.5:2026 – Composite Scoring