RETROSPECTIVE RECORD · PREPARED 16 SEPTEMBER 2026The archive · 100 retrospective records ↗
Risk and accuracy framework

What can this
file actually decide?

The core framework for carrying authority and disclosure with an artifact.

Six authorities

01 / DIMENSIONAL

Is the geometry to real scale?

Surveyed, scanned, or CAD-derived geometry can hold it. Eyeballed blockouts and text-prompt outputs do not.

02 / OPTICAL

Does the virtual camera behave like the real one?

Focal length, sensor, focus, filters, and kinematics must be real where a camera-dependent decision is at stake.

03 / PHOTOMETRIC

Will the light behave as shown?

Fixture definitions, geometry, sun position, date, time, and glazing matter. A photoreal image can still be wrong.

04 / PHYSICAL

Does matter behave?

Loads, collisions, flow, thermal behaviour, and clearance require a simulation or measurement, not only an animation.

05 / PROVENANCE

Where did every asset come from?

Authored, scanned, licensed, or generated, with terms and dates attached. Previs assets can migrate downstream.

06 / AUDITABILITY

Can someone reproduce it later?

Version history, open formats, source files, and a record of what changed are part of the artifact at higher classes.

Class requirements

ClassUseMinimum authority
0–2Inspiration, alignment, creative approvalVisual intent; provenance advised
3Commercial pitch or saleProvenance required
4Planning budget, schedule, quantitiesDimensional plus provenance
5Technical executionDimensional, optical, photometric, physical, provenance
6Regulated artifactAll six, fully auditable
Fidelity is not authority.

Find the highest class anyone will use the artifact for. If the required authority is absent, acquire it or downgrade the claim.

Synthesized from the supplied Risk and Accuracy Framework and Worked Examples. The research itself marks this framework as an internal draft pending practitioner review.