Governance & Independence

Who can assess an application

At this stage of the scheme, Sacred Logic™ Charter Mark assessments are conducted by Andrew Waterhouse, the founder of Sacred Logic Ltd. Andrew holds degrees in business, applied economics, software engineering, and small business management, and brings over twenty years of experience running an independent organisation in the west of Ireland.Sacred Logic™ is a sole-founder scheme at present. There is no assessor panel and no independent accreditation body has yet reviewed the scheme. Both of these are underway. The Certification Rules and Change Log record how the scheme evolves.

Who makes certification decisions

All Charter Mark certification decisions — to issue, defer, decline, suspend, or revoke — are currently made by Andrew Waterhouse. Every decision is recorded in the internal audit log with the framework version applied, the evidence on file, and an optional written rationale.A Charter Mark is never issued solely on the basis of a self-assessment score. Every certification requires a human review of documentary evidence against the ten-point Human Values Framework. The self-assessment is step one of the process, not the decision.

Conflicts of interest

Sacred Logic Ltd. is not itself an AI system provider, AI system deployer, or AI compliance consultant. Sacred Logic™ does not certify its own systems, and it does not accept fees for consultancy work that would create a direct commercial interest in the outcome of a certification decision.Certification fees cover access to the assessment process and the public registry — they do not purchase a Charter Mark outcome. An organisation that meets the framework criteria receives a Charter Mark; one that does not will receive a written explanation and an invitation to reapply when it is ready.Sacred Logic™ is not a notified body under EU law, and does not claim equivalence to one. The Charter Mark is a voluntary AI assurance scheme consistent with the voluntary code-of-conduct approach contemplated by Article 95 of the EU AI Act — not a statutory conformity assessment, CE marking, or governmental endorsement.

Independence safeguards

Sacred Logic™ maintains the following structural safeguards for the integrity of its certification decisions:

• Evidence-based decisions. Charter Mark assessments rest on documentary evidence; no organisation is certified on its own claims alone.
• Public register. Every current Charter Mark is listed on the public registry and can be independently verified at /verify.
• Public framework. The full Human Values Framework against which all decisions are made is published and versioned.
• Public rules. The Certification Rules — including validity, suspension, withdrawal, and appeals — are published and versioned.
• Audit trail. Every certification decision is logged with the framework version applied and the evidence reviewed.
• Public change log. Substantive changes to the scheme are recorded in the Change Log.

Appeals

If you believe a certification decision — to decline, suspend, or revoke a Charter Mark — was made in error or without proper regard to your evidence, you may submit a certification appeal.Appeals are handled under Certification Rules § 8 (Appeals and complaints). Sacred Logic™ aims to acknowledge an appeal within 5 working days and respond substantively within 30 working days. To submit an appeal, use the complaints and appeals form or email [email protected].

Our commitments and their limits

Sacred Logic Ltd. is a small, founder-led scheme. We make the following commitments plainly:

• We certify on evidence, not on payment or commercial relationship.
• We publish the rules and the framework so that any decision can be understood and challenged.
• We disclose who makes decisions and how — including where governance is still developing towards the standard of a mature scheme.
• We maintain a complaints and appeals route that is independent of the initial decision-maker.

Certification governance roadmap

Founder-led certification is a deliberate and transparent transitional stage, not the intended permanent governance model. The following steps are planned as the scheme grows and matures:

1. Assessor panel. Recruit and onboard a second, independent assessor. Assessor competency criteria and appointment process to be published in the Certification Rules ahead of recruitment.
2. Separation of assessment and decision. Once a panel exists, assessment (evidence review) and certification decision (issue/defer/decline) will be formally separated, with the decision made by a person who did not conduct the assessment.
3. External governance review. Commission an external review of the scheme against the governance principles of ISO/IEC 17065 (conformity assessment — requirements for bodies certifying products, processes, and services). The findings and any resulting changes will be published in the Change Log.
4. Independent accreditation (longer term). Pursue accreditation of the scheme by an independent accreditation body. This is contingent on scheme maturity and market demand.