A standard is only as trustworthy as the process that changes it. This page sets out how the three open standards are versioned, who decides, and how neutrality is protected — described honestly in the tense that matches where things actually stand today.
The Foundation intended to steward the standards does not yet have legal personality. Its founding charter is scheduled to be signed on 5 September 2026, with entry in the Swiss commercial register — and legal personality — to follow, targeted for late 2026 or early 2027. Until then the standards are published and maintained by Society OS Pty Ltd as current owner, under a pledge that binds every successor and assign so the guarantees hold continuously across the transfer. Where this page describes a board, a committee or public records, it describes the intended model, not a body that already exists.
F-ACT, T-RUE and R-EAL share a single, published change process. Each carries its own version; normative requirements change only through a published revision, never by quietly editing the live text.
A conformance claim made against a published version stays meaningful. When a requirement is retired it is deprecated on a stated timeline, not deleted out from under the people who relied on it.
The standards are designed so no single company can hold a veto over the rules. The core claims are being placed with a neutral steward, licensed back to the originating company on the same non-exclusive, royalty-free terms available to anyone else.
Anyone may read, cite, implement and require the standards without permission. As the coalition forms, the intent is that anyone can propose changes and follow how decisions are made.
Requirements change through a written, reviewable process — never by editing the live text in place. This is the intended flow as the coalition forms, applied uniformly across all three standards.
A change to a normative requirement is written down as a concrete proposal, naming the standard it affects, the problem it solves, and the impact on existing conformance claims.
Proposals are opened for review so implementers across all three standards can weigh in before anything is settled. The intent is that this record is public.
A proposal is accepted, revised or declined against the published principles — not on the preference of any one vendor.
Accepted changes ship in a new version of the affected standard, recorded in its public changelog. Deprecations carry a stated timeline so nobody is stranded.
The standards exist to be a level playing field, not a moat. Participation is open on equal terms; the process is meant to reach decisions on the merits rather than on the commercial interest of any single participant; and no participant — including the originating company — receives a structural advantage in the rules. The company competes on the merit of its products, never on a chokehold over the standards.