What evidence justifies relying on this institution for this particular purpose?
State the reliance decision, examine the people and process behind the promise, and look for usable evidence of performance and correction. Keep the judgment specific, provisional and open to contrary evidence.
Evidence checked October 17, 2026 (America/Denver; research received October 18 UTC). Version 1.0. Desk review; no hands-on testing.
What this guide helps you do
For evaluating a public-information system, community organization or institutional claim. The questions below are an original inquiry framework. They do not certify an organization, establish a legal remedy or produce a universal trust score.
Define exactly what reliance would mean
Write the claim and the consequence of being wrong. Are you trusting a library to retain a record, an agency to explain a process or a provider to report a result? Identify the particular service, responsible unit, time period and people affected. Decide what needs verification before acting and what can be checked later. General approval of an institution does not answer every question about its work.
Separate confidence from demonstrated reliability
Ask what people expect and what relevant records actually show. The OECD research provides questions about reliability, responsiveness, openness, integrity and fairness. Its 2024 report describes a late-2023 survey rather than current ratings; its participating countries did not include the United States. Use those dimensions as prompts and examine the actual local system. Treat public confidence, service performance and your own judgment as distinct kinds of evidence. Source: OECD trust survey framework and scope.
Identify responsibility, competence and incentives
Find who controls the decision, who performs the work and who reviews it. Ask what expertise is relevant, what evidence supports that expertise, how the work is checked and whose interests may influence it. Record unresolved questions about funding, conflicts or accountability without presenting suspicions as findings. Compare the institution’s explanation with independent material. These are inquiry prompts, not a finding that a particular person has acted improperly.
Ask whether the evidence fits the claim
Identify the source of a reported result, what it counts, its time period and what it omits. Check whether the evidence is accurate, sufficiently complete and applicable to the decision. GAO’s overview frames these as data-reliability questions for audits. A citizen’s first inquiry can flag missing definitions or mismatched populations; it does not replace a formal audit or establish that untested data are reliable. Source: GAO data-reliability assessment overview.
Examine transparency and correction in practice
Look for understandable methods, accessible information, limitations and a visible explanation of revisions. For statistical claims, the UK regulator’s principles offer questions about integrity, rigor, uncertainty and public value. Check whether an institution supplies evidence and responds to substantive corrections. Record both a documented improvement and a remaining gap. Applying a few questions from the principles does not establish code compliance or membership in a recognition scheme. Source: OSR Code principles for trustworthy statistics.
Choose a proportionate next step
Record the evidence supporting reliance, contrary evidence, unresolved questions and the conditions that would change your view. A possible result is limited reliance for a narrow purpose while seeking corroboration for a consequential decision. Identify an independent source, a responsible contact or a reversible alternative where available. Set a review trigger such as a changed method, missed commitment or correction; keep the earlier reasoning available for comparison.
A pathway to practice
- Define the reliance: Name the promise, context and consequence.
- Examine the system: Identify responsibility, competence and incentives.
- Test the explanation: Seek suitable evidence and independent challenge.
- Keep judgment revisable: Record limits, alternatives and review triggers.
Resources and their limitations
OECD trust survey framework and scope
Use it for: Separate perceived institutional trust from evidence about a specific decision.
Access and cost: Public HTML chapter is free; data analysis and specialist interpretation may require additional resources.
How to use it: Read the Introduction and survey scope before using the reliability, responsiveness, openness, integrity and fairness questions.
Evaluation and limits: July 10, 2024 report; October–November 2023 observations are not 2026 ratings. The listed 30-country survey does not include the United States. Introduction reviewed, not datasets or the whole report; no causal or institutional verdict.
Alternatives: Original institutional records; independent evaluation; a clearly scoped local inquiry.
Open OECD trust survey framework and scope
GAO data-reliability assessment overview
Use it for: Ask whether evidence is accurate, complete and suitable for the intended purpose.
Access and cost: Public HTML overview is free; full-report links are provided.
How to use it: Read Fast Facts and Highlights, then use the full guide with appropriate expertise for a formal assessment.
Evaluation and limits: Published December 16, 2019. Only HTML overview reviewed; neither the linked 72-page report nor 71-page accessible PDF was read. No audit, certification or dataset test performed.
Alternatives: Original data definitions and limitations; an appropriately qualified auditor or analyst.
Open GAO data-reliability assessment overview
OSR Code principles for trustworthy statistics
Use it for: Examine how an organization produces, explains and corrects statistical information.
Access and cost: Public HTML principles chapter is free; no membership or recognition sought.
How to use it: Read Trustworthiness, Quality and Value and compare their questions with a specific published claim.
Evaluation and limits: Published November 3, 2025; page metadata modified August 11, 2026. Principles chapter only; linked standards and legal requirements not audited. No claim of compliance, certification or U.S. legal applicability.
Alternatives: Underlying methods and data; independent review and the institution’s correction record.
Open OSR Code principles for trustworthy statistics
Checklist
- Write the exact reliance decision and its consequences.
- Identify the responsible unit and the relevant period.
- Ask about competence, incentives and independent review.
- Check whether the evidence is accurate, complete and applicable.
- Look for limitations, corrections and usable accountability.
- Record a scoped judgment, remaining uncertainty and a review trigger.
Related guides
Finding primary sources (SG-D18-S02); Checking claims and comparing evidence (SG-D18-S03); Product, service and method evaluation (SG-D18-S04); Research notes and knowledge systems (SG-D18-S06); Understanding public institutions (SG-D30-S01); Public records and open government (SG-D30-S02); Budgets, procurement and public performance (SG-D30-S06); Institutional trust and reform (SG-D30-S07).
From the Whole Earth registry to current practice
The Cybernetics review discusses communication, control and feedback and includes an excerpt about how groups communicate. The trust worksheet is a modern extension. Historical biological analogies, social generalizations and computer specifications do not validate an institutional judgment.
Whole Earth Fall 1968 archive edition
Sources and review notes
No institution, official, dataset or service was audited or rated. The OECD chapter is historical survey research, GAO is an overview of audit guidance, and OSR is a UK statistical framework. Broader application is our explicitly identified synthesis. Awake Foundation’s Systems of Trust work is a related research context, not independent validation of this worksheet.
