Building our own model

We should separate the model’s purpose, capabilities, usage points, and expected organizational outcomes.

The main thing - they don’t include the operationalization of the model. Why do we need it? How and when we could use it? Why and how you should build the model and definition yourself?

The main problem in common definitions is a lack of operational criteria, rather than incompleteness in the number of properties listed.

It could be difficult for an engineering organization to understand:

• what the model fundamentally does;
• which outputs it produces;
• where it integrates into existing workflows;
• which parts are mandatory;
• how much rigor is appropriate for a given system;
• whether adoption is improving engineering outcomes.

And explicit reasoning structure connecting production context, required outcomes, risks, system claims, controls, evidence, organizational capability, and decision authority.

The framework should not start from a universal checklist. It should derive readiness criteria from the system’s intended production use and operating context.

The model should contain only the stable concepts, properties, relationships, and boundaries of production readiness. The framework should contain the operationalization logic that translates those concepts into context-specific claims, criteria, and evidence expectations, together with roles, lifecycle touchpoints, gates, artifacts, tooling, exceptions, and reassessment.