Standards Development Methodology

NRE Health Institute

This page demonstrates procedural maturity. It shows that standards are not opinion-based, but systematically developed.

1. Purpose

The Standards Development Methodology defines the structured process through which the NRE Health Institute formulates, reviews, publishes, and updates institutional standards.

The objective is to ensure that all standards are:

• Evidence-informed
• Procedurally documented
• Risk-aware
• Measurable where applicable
• Transparent in scope and limitation

This methodology separates structured governance from informal guidance.

2. Development Lifecycle

All standards follow a defined lifecycle:

Phase 1 – Scope Definition

• Identification of domain
• Boundary clarification
• Risk domain mapping
• Regulatory interface review

A formal scope document is created before drafting begins.

Phase 2 – Research Integration

• Review of interdisciplinary research
• Comparative regulatory analysis
• Public health framework alignment
• Identification of risk variables

Evidence sources are documented and archived.

Phase 3 – Draft Framework Construction

• Structured language development
• Operational clarity formatting
• Boundary conditions defined
• Limitation statements included

Drafts are labelled as provisional until internal review is completed.

Phase 4 – Internal Review Process

• Governance consistency verification
• Risk compatibility assessment
• Terminology standardization
• Mandate boundary confirmation

Only after structured review does a document proceed to publication status.

Phase 5 – Publication & Version Control

• Formal version numbering
• Publication date recording
• Archive retention of prior drafts
• Public accessibility designation

All standards carry traceable revision history.

Phase 6 – Periodic Review & Amendment

Standards are reviewed periodically in response to:

• Legislative changes
• Regulatory developments
• Empirical findings
• Public safety outcomes
• Institutional refinement needs

Amendments follow the same documented lifecycle.

3. Evidence Hierarchy

The Institute recognizes varying levels of evidentiary strength.

Standards may be informed by:

• Peer-reviewed research
• Public health data
• Policy precedent analysis
• Behavioral science findings
• Risk modelling frameworks

Where empirical data is limited, conceptual frameworks are clearly identified as such.

4. Documentation Discipline

Each published standard includes:

• Defined scope
• Application boundaries
• Risk considerations
• Compliance interface
• Limitation statement

No standard is presented as universally applicable across jurisdictions without contextual adaptation.

5. Separation from Advocacy

The Standards Development Methodology explicitly separates:

• Governance documentation
• Research findings
• Cultural advocacy
• Philosophical perspectives

Standards are drafted for regulatory readability and professional scrutiny.

6. Institutional Integrity Safeguard

No standard may:

• Contradict existing legal frameworks
• Introduce unsafe operational ambiguity
• Blur non-sexual classification clarity
• Exceed the Institute’s mandate

Institutional credibility supersedes narrative preference.

7. Transparency Commitment

The Institute commits to:

• Publishing methodology openly
• Retaining version history
• Clarifying draft versus final documents
• Stating limitations explicitly

Transparency reinforces institutional legitimacy.