TT Claude Memory

project_inherit_international_iso_intent

Properties1
description20 April 2026 — Rich directed that v2 is NOT UK-centric; Phase 1 E&W focus is for commercial tractability only. Stated endpoint is ISO standardisation (target window 2028-2030 via OASIS → JTC 1 PAS fast-track).

3 min read

Stated Monday 20 April 2026 by Rich: “i think we should also say that v2 is ‘not UK centric/orientated’, and make it clear we intend v2 to become an ISO standard, once we have got things moving! ;-)”

Full capture: docs-strategy/ideas/2026-04-20-inherit-international-scope-iso-intent.md.

The two signals

Not UK-centric

  • Architecturally: already jurisdiction-agnostic. 6-family schema has no UK-specific assumptions.
  • Phase 1 E&W focus: commercial tractability, NOT ideological preference. E&W has the tractable partner ecosystem, clearest statute, lowest ambiguity overhead.
  • Never frame v2 as a “UK tool”. Always lead with “international estate-data standard” in any brand-doc / positioning / marketing / outreach content.
  • Scotland + NI + Ireland Phase 2-3 = expanding jurisdictional coverage, not “adding to a UK standard.” Same sentence pattern as Japanese / Singaporean / Kenyan modules Phase 4+.

ISO-track endpoint (stated, not aspirational)

  • Target: OASIS Standard (via TC) → ISO/IEC JTC 1 PAS fast-track → ISO standard.
  • Timing: realistic 2028-2030 per docs-strategy/docs/superpowers/specs/foundation-arch-research/19-oasis-to-iso-fast-track.md DEFER verdict. Precondition is 2-3 years of OASIS-standard implementation experience.
  • v4.0.0 positioning makes the path possible; does NOT execute ISO submission. The research is explicit about not attempting submission at v4.0.0.
  • OASIS TC creation is Phase 2 month 12-18 preconstraint; TT + 3-5 founding members needed.

How to apply

  1. In brand docs (openinherit.md, inheritkit.md): §1 what-this-is paragraph must state international scope + ISO-track endpoint. §3 commercial purpose benefits from citing ISO trajectory as acquirer-appeal + partner-trust factor.
  2. In partner outreach: international partners (Singapore Bar, FHIR community, EU ODRL stewards, faith-tradition advisors) approached on equal footing as early-stage contributors to an international standard.
  3. In AI-vendor commercial conversations: ISO-track standard is a differentiator — OpenAI/Anthropic/Google want one format that works for any jurisdiction; international+ISO INHERIT fits their global product strategies.
  4. In governance conversations: ISO target justifies content-discipline overhead (ISO/JTC 1 editorial directives) even before submission. Costs near-zero at v4.0.0 draft time; saves rework at v4.1+ submission time.
  5. In acquirer conversations: ISO-track standard is materially more valuable at exit than private vendor-controlled format. Reinforces Option G+ criterion 16 (acquirer-appeal) 5/5.

What this does NOT change

  • Phase 1 build scope (E&W focus correct).
  • Commercial model (InheritKit AGPL + dual commercial unaffected).
  • Day-1 Apache 2.0 licence for INHERIT (ISO-friendly).
  • v4.0.0 timing (no pressure to shift).

Sibling context

  • Format scorecard v1.2 §6 Governance-body attractiveness scores are conditional on international framing. UK-only framing would lower JSON-LD (5), RDF/OWL (5), Akoma Ntoso (5), JSON Schema (4) — because OIDF/W3C/OASIS/ISO host international standards, not regional.
  • Law-vs-practice split (memory project_law_vs_practice_split.md) + lean-to-Apache default bias (memory project_schema_vs_inheritkit_bias.md REVERSED) both reinforce governance-track viability: meaty Apache INHERIT + law-clean content split are preconditions for successful OASIS TC constitution + ISO submission.

Graph View

Backlinks