DPDP EDITORIAL DESK · REVIEWED
Why a compliance score must show confidence and evidence type
A number without scope, source status and evidence quality creates precision the underlying review may not support.
No checklist or score on this independent preview is a regulator decision, certification or legal opinion.
Assessment interfaces should separate requirement applicability, control design, implementation evidence and test confidence before summarising results.
Four questions before one number
Ask whether the requirement applies, whether a control is designed, whether it operates, and whether the evidence was independently tested. These are different claims.
Show unknowns
Missing evidence, inaccessible systems and unreviewed source mappings should remain visible. Treating unknown as zero or pass both mislead.
Use scores for navigation
A score can prioritise review when its scope and confidence are explicit. It should not be labelled proof of compliance.
SOURCE TRAIL
Official records used for the factual lane
Source IDs show provenance. They do not turn the engineering analysis into official guidance.
CONNECTED PATTERNS
SDF DPIA and audit evidence roomCONTENT CHANGE LOG
Official MeitY/PIB source trail rechecked; architecture-to-evidence connections added without changing the fact/analysis boundary.
Official status sources rechecked; navigation index and review metadata refreshed.
Official source status rechecked; fact and analysis lanes reviewed.
Initial private-preview research note published.