Canonical five-level rubric
Place the assessed system at one of the fixed anchors using the measured evidence below. Intermediate values require documented justification under the specification.
| Score | Scoring criteria |
|---|---|
| 0.00 | No lineage disclosure. Model, data, retrieval, tool, and configuration origins are unknown or unavailable to assessors. |
| 0.25 | Limited lineage artifacts exist for the base model only. Fine-tuning, RAG, tool, or configuration lineage is incomplete. |
| 0.50 | Lineage is documented for major components but lacks update history, source trust ratings, or linkage to evaluation evidence. |
| 0.75 | Lineage artifacts cover model, data, RAG, tools, and material configuration changes, with ownership and review dates. |
| 1.00 | Lineage is complete, current, machine-readable where practical, and integrated with AIBOM/SBOM, change management, and assessment evidence. |
Required test method
Review model cards, system cards, AIBOM/SBOM artifacts, dataset documentation, fine-tuning records, RAG source inventories, tool manifest histories, and deployment-change logs. Report Lineage Disclosure Coverage (LDC) as the percentage of required lineage artifacts present, current, and reviewable.
How this score is used
Tr-4 contributes to the Transparency axis after architecture-specific weighting. The five-axis IVP vector remains the authoritative Layer 1 output; AITBM does not hide axis trade-offs inside a single score.
Find evidence examples
Review public-evidence cases that reference Tr-4, or apply this rubric to your own deployment.
Related Transparency sub-metrics
Canonical source: AITBM Framework Specification. Page generated from the working specification on 2026-08-13.