Institutional research · governance validation
The organisation is part of the proposition—and must be tested.
FASO will not treat a functioning system as proof of a trustworthy institution. Organisational structure, governance, protected purpose and the candidate Frozen Core require comparative research, legal scrutiny, adversarial review and practical validation.
The institutional proposition
FASO must establish not only whether its system works, but whether an organisation can hold the duty responsibly.
Legal form, governance, authority, research integrity, funding, publication and public accountability interact. None can be settled safely by treating the technical architecture as the organisational design.
Purpose and protected core
What public-interest purpose should be protected, which principles belong in a candidate Frozen Core and how could lawful amendment remain possible without enabling capture?
Legal and regulatory form
Which structure can employ people, hold assets and contracts, manage liability, protect purpose and meet the appropriate reporting and public-benefit duties?
Governance and authority
How should governing, executive, technical, review and publication authority be separated, delegated, challenged and renewed?
Research integrity
What standards should govern protocols, data, conflicts, peer review, correction, misconduct concerns, reproducibility and independent findings?
Funding and anti-capture
What concentration limits, disclosures, recusals, publication protections and refusal rules are required across public, philanthropic and commercial funding?
Participation and accountability
How should developers, researchers, public bodies and affected interests contribute without gaining inappropriate control or being falsely presented as endorsers?
Candidate Frozen Core · not adopted
Seven propositions to test under hostile as well as supportive conditions.
“Frozen” means intended to resist casual or interested alteration. It cannot mean outside the law or literally impossible to amend. The lawful protection and amendment mechanism depends on the legal form and specialist advice.
- 01Protected public-interest purpose.
- 02Independence from commercial, political, technical and funding capture.
- 03A descriptive, non-prescriptive observatory role.
- 04Evidence integrity, provenance, replay and bounded certainty.
- 05A Publication Boundary protecting safety, privacy, authority and evidential discipline.
- 06Permanent visibility of material failure, correction, conflict and dissent.
- 07Human accountability, independent challenge and responsible transfer of authority.
Institutional validation programme
Research, compare, challenge, test and only then adopt.
Each stage must create reviewable evidence. A preferred outcome cannot be allowed to determine the method used to evaluate it.
Separate already-authorised FASO doctrine from assumptions, aspirations and candidate constitutional protections.
Examine charity, social-enterprise, research-institute, hosted-programme and other relevant models against FASO’s actual duties.
Obtain specialist advice on purpose, public benefit, liability, employment, assets, intellectual property, data, tax, amendment and dissolution.
Invite funders, developers, researchers, public bodies and affected interests to identify capture routes, missing duties and unacceptable burdens.
Test each candidate principle against funding pressure, urgent incidents, technical disagreement, leadership failure and attempted mission drift.
Place the proposed legal form, board design, delegations, conflicts controls, publication authority and transition plan outside FASO’s control.
Exercise real decision scenarios and stopping conditions before any final constitution, appointments or operational authority.
Legal-form options
No structure is preferred until the duties and trade-offs have been tested.
The options below are comparison subjects, not recommendations. FASO will require specialist legal, regulatory and tax advice before selecting or forming an entity.
Charitable form
Charitable Incorporated Organisation
An incorporated charity structure with limited or no trustee liability, regulated through the Charity Commission and governed by a constitution.
Charitable form
Charitable company limited by guarantee
An incorporated charity subject to charity and company law, capable of contracts, employment and asset ownership in its own name.
Social-enterprise form
Community Interest Company
A limited company for community benefit with a compulsory asset lock and annual community-interest reporting, but not a charity.
Transitional arrangement
Hosted or sponsored research programme
A possible time-limited route for independent research and governance development without treating the host as FASO’s settled institutional form.
Purpose-built alternative
Hybrid or other appropriate structure
Potentially necessary if one entity cannot safely combine research, technical operation, evidence stewardship and independent review.
Decision rule
Function before form
Choose only after mapping powers, liabilities, independence, public benefit, funding, transparency, amendment and dissolution consequences.
Tests the institution must pass
The governance model must remain capable of failing.
A credible process records the conditions under which FASO should change structure, delay formation or stop.
- 01
Can the public-interest purpose be stated precisely enough to guide decisions and prevent mission drift?
- 02
Can funding, access and partnership pressures be prevented from controlling issues, findings or publication?
- 03
Are governing, executive, technical, review and publication accountabilities clear and genuinely separated?
- 04
Can conflicts be identified, declared, removed from decisions, managed and recorded under real pressure?
- 05
Can research failure, complaints, correction and serious incidents be handled transparently without unsafe disclosure?
- 06
Can affected interests and external experts challenge the institution without becoming tokens or acquiring improper authority?
- 07
Can private founding authority transfer credibly without loss of doctrine, accountability or operational continuity?
Stop or redesign if
Institutional weakness is a substantive failure—not an administrative detail.
- The purpose cannot be protected under the proposed form
- The funding model compromises independence
- Authority, review or publication conflicts remain unresolved
- The Publication Boundary cannot be both safe and accountable
- The transition from private founding authority is not credible
- The operational burden or risk outweighs the demonstrated public value
Authoritative starting points
Use recognised frameworks as evidence and comparison—not as borrowed legitimacy.
FASO has not adopted these codes and is not claiming charity, government-body or external institutional status. They provide current reference issues against which a future proposal can be tested.
Governance · 2025
Charity Governance Code
Eight principles covering foundation duties, purpose, leadership, ethics and culture, decision-making, resources and risk, inclusion and board effectiveness.
Read the CodeLegal purpose and structure
Charity Commission guidance
Official guidance on public benefit, governing documents, trustee duties, conflicts and the consequences of selecting different structures.
Compare charity structuresCommunity-benefit company
CIC Regulator guidance
Official explanation of the community-interest test, statutory reporting and the permanent asset lock applying to Community Interest Companies.
Read CIC guidanceResearch integrity · 2025
UKRIO Code of Practice for Research
A benchmark for research governance, data, collaboration, peer review, reproducibility, misconduct concerns and the responsible use of artificial intelligence.
Read the UKRIO CodeAI risk governance
NIST AI Risk Management Framework
Connects technical risk work to organisational values, policies, roles, ongoing review, documentation and independent assessment.
Read the NIST frameworkAI accountability
OECD AI Principles
International reference principles for human rights, transparency, robustness, safety, traceability and accountability across the artificial-intelligence lifecycle.
Read the OECD principlesEvidence required before adoption
Produce an options paper, governance map, conflict register, legal review, Frozen Core draft, independent report and governance-pilot record.
The institutional model becomes credible through a visible chain of research and challenge—not because the website describes an attractive structure.