Design Principles

1. Purpose

The Canonical Disclosure Intent (CDI) framework defines a neutral, reusable semantic layer for expressing what an organisation intends to disclose externally, independent of any specific reporting standard, regulation, or questionnaire.

These design principles govern the structure, scope, and evolution of CDI to ensure it functions as a stable bridge between canonical sustainability data (CERM) and framework-specific interpretation (CMP).

CDI defines disclosure meaning.
It does not define reporting obligation.

2. Separation of Meaning from Obligation

CDI explicitly separates:

  • Disclosure meaning — what is being communicated
  • Disclosure obligation — whether, where, and how it must be reported

CDIs describe intent, not requirement. They do not encode:

  • mandatory status
  • jurisdictional applicability
  • compliance thresholds
  • enforcement logic
  • reporting location within a framework

This separation preserves the authority of reporting standards while enabling semantic reuse across them.

3. Framework Neutrality

CDIs shall remain independent of:

  • specific reporting standards
  • regulatory jurisdictions
  • clause numbering systems
  • questionnaire structures
  • template formats

A CDI must be interpretable without reference to any external framework.

Mappings between CDIs and reporting standards are handled exclusively through Canonical Mapping Packs (CMPs).

4. Single Semantic Intent

Each CDI represents a single, clearly defined disclosure concept.

A CDI may be consumed by:

  • multiple reporting standards
  • multiple jurisdictions
  • multiple digital taxonomies
  • multiple presentation formats

Where two disclosures share the same meaning, they shall map to the same CDI.

CDIs are not duplicated to reflect framework structure.

5. Data-Backed Semantics

Every CDI must be capable of being fulfilled through references to canonical elements defined in CERM, including:

  • Metrics
  • Targets
  • Trajectories
  • Assertions
  • Structured narrative elements

CDIs do not perform calculations or transformations.
They declare semantic dependencies, not computational logic.

Disclosure meaning must remain anchored in canonical data truth rather than presentation structure.

6. Explicit Boundary and Temporal Applicability

CDIs must declare whether:

  • organisational or value-chain boundaries apply,
  • a reporting period is required,
  • baseline references are permitted,
  • forward-looking elements are allowed.

These characteristics are declared, not enforced.

Explicit declaration prevents implicit assumptions and supports consistent interpretation across frameworks.

7. Stability Over Time

CDIs are designed to be semantically stable even as:

  • reporting standards evolve,
  • disclosure formats change,
  • regulatory expectations shift.

A CDI shall not be redefined in a manner that alters its fundamental meaning without a version increment.

Changes are versioned and documented.

Stability enables reuse, assurance continuity, and longitudinal comparability.

8. Minimal and Non-Redundant Taxonomy

The CDI taxonomy shall:

  • avoid duplication of meaning,
  • avoid framework-specific variants,
  • represent the minimum set of intents necessary to support common disclosure needs.

Taxonomy growth must be justified by semantic necessity rather than structural convenience.

This principle prevents fragmentation and preserves clarity.

9. Quantitative and Narrative Parity

CDI recognises that sustainability disclosures include:

  • quantitative data,
  • narrative explanation,
  • hybrid disclosures combining both.

CDIs support:

  • purely quantitative intents,
  • purely narrative intents,
  • hybrid intents referencing both structured data and contextual explanation.

Narrative disclosures are treated as semantically equivalent to quantitative disclosures within the architecture.

10. Non-Assertion of Compliance

CDIs do not assert:

  • completeness,
  • adequacy,
  • compliance,
  • regulatory sufficiency.

They express only what is disclosed.

Assessment of compliance or sufficiency occurs outside the CDI layer.

11. Traceability and Audit Support

Each CDI must support traceability by:

  • referencing canonical data elements,
  • maintaining stable identifiers,
  • enabling linkage to evidence via assertions.

CDIs facilitate auditability but do not replace assurance processes.

12. Extensibility with Constraint

The CDI framework permits extension to support:

  • emerging topics,
  • sector-specific concepts,
  • evolving disclosure practices.

Extensions:

  • must not redefine existing CDIs,
  • must follow these design principles,
  • must be clearly distinguished from core taxonomy elements.

Extensibility shall not compromise semantic stability.

13. Governance and Change Control

Changes to CDI design principles or taxonomy require:

  • documented rationale,
  • public visibility,
  • explicit versioning,
  • alignment with CERM architectural principles.

CDI stewardship prioritises neutrality, stability, and interoperability over rapid expansion.

14. Summary

The Canonical Disclosure Intent framework establishes a stable semantic layer that separates disclosure meaning from regulatory obligation.

By isolating meaning from interpretation, CDI enables scalable reuse, structured auditability, and resilience to regulatory change — while preserving the authority of existing reporting standards.

Version: v1.0.0