Evidence
Trust requires identified evidence. Provider claims, local ownership and confident use are not substitutes for assurance.
Canonical framework publication
The Intelligence Sovereignty Framework
A governance, assurance and resilience framework for consequential intelligence dependence.
Canonical definition
Intelligence Sovereignty is a sustained capability.
It is not technological isolation or ownership of every component. It is freedom of action under changing conditions, supported by evidence and institutional capability.
Intelligence Sovereignty is the sustained ability of a nation or institution to develop, access, understand, govern, assure, adapt and continue operating the intelligence capabilities upon which its decisions, services and strategic interests depend, while retaining sufficient independent evidence and institutional capacity to evaluate and contest those capabilities, without becoming critically vulnerable to the decisions, failure or withdrawal of external actors.
The governing problem
Dependence can grow faster than the capability to govern it.
The critical question is not simply whether intelligent systems are adopted, but whether the institution can still understand, challenge, assure, replace and continue the capability when conditions change.
Authority
Formal accountability and practical decision rights must remain clear, including who may restrict, suspend, accept risk or change course.
Continuity
Sovereignty becomes visible when suppliers, models, licences, prices, infrastructure or geopolitical conditions change.
The Five Sovereignty Pillars
Five mutually reinforcing domains, with no implied hierarchy.
Capability SovereigntyThe human and institutional competence required to understand, develop, challenge, operate and improve intelligence capabilities.
Governance SovereigntyThe ability to determine and enforce rules, accountability, permitted uses, decision rights, transparency and remedies.
Infrastructure SovereigntyThe resilience and controllability of compute, cloud, data, connectivity, identity, cybersecurity and energy foundations.
Operational SovereigntyThe ability to maintain essential services and decisions as suppliers, models, prices, licences or technical conditions change.
Knowledge SovereigntyThe ability to create, retain, validate and transmit the intellectual capital needed to sustain intelligence capability over time.
Evaluative Sovereignty
Evaluation is cross-cutting, not a sixth pillar.
An institution must retain sufficient independent evidence and institutional capacity to evaluate and contest the intelligence on which it depends.
Assurance operates across all five pillars. Justified trust comes from credible evidence, not from branding, proximity or ownership alone.
The Intelligence Sovereignty Test
Five questions for rapid executive triage.
1. What critical decisions depend upon this intelligence capability?
2. Who ultimately governs it?
3. How do we know its outputs remain trustworthy?
4. Can we replace it without unacceptable disruption?
5. If access changed tomorrow, what capability would remain under our control?
Question 1 is an unscored inventory prerequisite. Questions 2 to 5 use Yes, Partially or No. Any No or Partially response indicates a potential Intelligence Sovereignty issue requiring further assessment. No numerical or overall Test score is approved.
Publication status
Foundational doctrine is public. Method validation remains controlled.
Foundational Edition 1.0 is the canonical framework publication.
The formal definition, four principles, five pillars, maturity restrictions, Test and assessment architecture are controlled here. The five maturity descriptors remain Approved Provisional. Detailed evidence thresholds are not approved, and no certification, public comparison, league table or overall maturity score is authorised.
Institutional engagement