Following today’s discussions, I attach a slightly revised and much tidied draft offering.

It is still ‘63A’-bound but that’s just a tag change to make them no-specific to 63A_SAC.

Additionally, they are still specific to evidence processing and in that context the additional criteria 63A#0190 and ’#0210 would still be required.

If we go for a generic set of criteria I think we’re going to have to think about how to identify those criteria which are being treated comparatively and how to identify each case of justification for the CompAlt solution.  That is, there may be multiple instances of individual cases of CompAlt, and certainly there is no prior expectation of where they might apply, so how do they get related to the criterion/criteria for which they are intended to be alternative?  I’m wondering whether this isn’t best accomplished by a new SoCA status, “CompAlt – see «ref.»”, where ref is some pointer to a specific CompAlt justification (we also need to work out how to have these described in a consistent manner).  The benefit of this approach is that any potential user could see immediately (because the SoCA is published) whether a service employed any CompAlt.

The choice seems to be between a readily-defined set of additional CompAlt criteria for specific application, versus generic criteria which may require additional supporting mechanisms (presuming in each of those choices that we are committed to CompAlt).

Richard G. WILSHER
CEO & Founder,  Zygma Inc.
www.Zygma.biz
+1 714 797 9942