VALIDATION MAP

Version 1.0 • 22 August 2026

1. Summary

The validation map is a single decision-making mechanism in the EQUILIBRIUM system. It transforms a subjective assessment of a “good idea/bad idea” into a consistent procedure based on criteria, evidence, scoring, expert judgment, and measurable outcome.

• Object of validation: idea, project, technology, product, participant, organization, financial instrument, environmental solution, program or other element of the system.
• Result: decision on admission, refinement, piloting, scaling or deviation.
• Base: 13 Fundamental principles × 20 Verification Directions = 260 Test Cells.
• Scale: Each cell is rated from 0 to 3 points; maximum - 780 points.
• The key principle: it is not the declaration that is validated, but the proven ability to create a positive social, environmental, technological and economic result.

2. Three layers of validation

Layer I. Value-sense

Checks why a solution exists, whom it serves, whether it disrupts the balance and whether it conforms to the basic architecture of EQUILIBRIUM.

Layer II. Probative-project

Verifies the facts: problem, technology, law, economics, team, risk, resources, metrics, evidence and feasibility.

Layer III. Effective

Verifies the actual effect of the pilot, the sustainability of the result, repeatability, scalability and long-term legacy.

3. Thirteen reasons

4. Twenty verification directions

1. Purpose. Is there a specific desired result and a criterion for achieving it?

2. Problem. Is the problem supported by data and is there a causal link?

3. User. Is the person directly using the solution determined?

4. Beneficiary. Is it clear who gets the final effect and in what form?

5. Resources. Are people, technology, data, infrastructure, and time enough?

6. Risks. Are key risks identified and management measures included?

7. Effect. Is the expected social, environmental and economic impact formulated?

8. Metrics. Is there a measurable KPI baseline and calculation method?

9. Ethics. Are the principles of good faith, dignity and non-injury respected?

10. Right. Does the decision comply with applicable law and regulatory requirements?

11. Economy. Is the project economy tested: costs, revenues, benefits, sustainability?

12. Technology. Are technical feasibility, maturity and safety confirmed?

13. Management. Are roles, powers, controls and responsibilities defined?

14. Communication. Is there a clear contour of interaction with participants and society?

15. Scaling. Is it possible to replicate the solution in another region, industry or scale?

16. Partners. Are the necessary partners and their contributions confirmed?

17. Funding. Is there a realistic funding model and sources of capital?

18. The social result. How do quality of life, employment, safety, accessibility and trust change?

19. Environmental result. How do emissions, resources, biodiversity, soils, water, air, and ecosystems change?

20. A long-term legacy. What will happen after the funding or the pilot is completed?

5. Matrix 13 × 20

Each object undergoes 260 checks: for each of 13 bases all 20 directions are considered. This allows us to see not only the overall attractiveness of the project, but also its “failures” — for example, a strong technology with a weak legal model or a high environmental effect in the absence of sustainable financing.

6. Scale of assessment

7. Final levels of admission

8. Critical Stop Factors

A high total score does not compensate for critical violations. An object cannot be validated if at least one stop factor is installed:

• illegality of the key mechanism or impossibility of legal execution;
• unacceptable risk to life, health or safety;
• falsification of data, results or origin of assets;
• absence of a real owner of responsibility;
• significant environmental damage without compensatory or restorative mechanisms;
• Unresolved conflict of interest that hides significant risks
• inability to confirm the origin of key evidence;
• An economic model based solely on the transfer of damage to third parties or future generations.

9. Hierarchy of evidence

Evaluation is assigned not by presentation, but by the strength of the evidence. Priority of evidence:

• A. Primary confirmations: measurements, tests, registers, contracts, accounting data, protocols, technical journals.
• B. Independent verification: accredited laboratory, audit, examination, certification, external validator.
• C. Confirmed pilot: working object, operational statistics, user data and monitoring.
• D. Comparable cases: proven results of similar decisions under comparable conditions.
• E. Expert opinion: a qualified opinion with the disclosed methodology and assumptions.
• F. Applicant’s declaration: used as background information, but is not sufficient evidence in itself.

10. Validation procedure

Step 1. Registration

The object receives the ID, owner, version and a brief passport.

Step 2. Prescreening

The basic completeness, conflict of interest, stop factors and applicability of criteria are checked.

Step 3. Documentary verification

A register of evidence for 260 cells is being formed.

Step 4. Expert assessment

Profile experts put out points and fix the grounds.

Step 5. Risk Committee

Critical risks are assessed separately from the average score.

Step 6. Pilot

If required, a limited test is carried out with pre-approved metrics.

Step 7. Verification of the result

Baseline, planned KPI and actual effect are compared.

Step 8. Decision

Issued status: accept / accept with conditions / pilot / reassembly / reject.

Step 9. Roster

The result is entered in the register of validated solutions EQUILIBRIUM.

Step 10. Revalidation

With significant changes, new data, or a set cycle, the object is retested.

11. Roles and responsibilities

12. Validation decision passport

13. Working Card 13 × 20

In the working version, each cell contains: a score of 0–3, a link to the proof, an expert comment and, if necessary, a corrective action.

Number of directions: 1 Objective; 2 Problem; 3 User; 4 Beneficiary; 5 Resources; 6 Risks; 7 Effect; 8 Metrics; 9 Ethics; 10 Law; 11 Economy; 12 Technology; 13 Management; 14 Communication; 15 Scaling; 16 Partners; 17 Financing; 18 Social result; 19 Environmental result; 20 Long-term heritage.

14. Communication with architecture EQUILIBRIUM

The validation map should be used as a universal gateway between the initiative and system resources. It can be used in SFERA For the selection of initiatives, in ECO-PPA for evidence of environmental projects, in SPECZASHCHITA for the admission of performers and technologies, as well as EQUILIBRIUM as part of the unified register of decisions and monitoring of the result.

15. Principle of immutability

Neither the applicant’s credibility, nor the amount of investment, nor political or institutional significance should replace the evidence. The greater the scale and potential systemic effect of the solution, the higher the requirements for independent verification, data transparency and risk control.

16. Final solution standard

Validated is considered to be an object that simultaneously:

• has no critical stop factors;
• scored an adequate score for the appropriate level of admission;
• has confirmed evidence on key criteria;
• has a responsibility owner and an understandable management model;
• demonstrates measurable results or has a correct piloting plan;
• has a certain period of validity of imprisonment and a mechanism of revalidation.

Validation card EQUILIBRIUM

"From idea to proven result"