§ Standards — Policy Submissions

We put our positions on the record.

When Summit comments on a federal standard or submits to a consortium, the full text is published — not a press release about it. Public processes deserve public participants.

§ 01

Submissions

SSDF v1.2 IPD

NIST SP 800-218 Rev. 1 — Public Comment↗

Summit endorses the draft's shift from checklists to continuous, evidence-based assurance — and proposes redline text requiring machine-verifiable evidence manifests per release, signature verification of provenance attestations prior to merge and release, and mandatory automated CI/CD evidence checks where feasible. Published in full, including the proposed insertions to PS.4, PO.6, and PW.7.

June 2026

NIST AI Consortium — Letter of Intent↗

Summit's letter of intent to participate in the NIST AI consortium process — contributing the Decision Receipt Specification, the Cognitive Security Framework, and AGD-Bench methodology as candidate inputs for measurable AI assurance.

§ 02

Why we publish them

Three reasons, in order of importance.

Accountability. A company that asks the market to demand verifiable evidence from AI vendors should hold itself to the same disclosure standard. Our policy positions are evidence too — so they get the same treatment: complete, versioned, inspectable.

Adoption. Standards succeed when language travels. Publishing full submission text lets agencies, primes, and other vendors lift exact phrasing — evidence manifests, signature verification before release, determinism requirements — into their own comments and contracts.

The record. Standards processes move slowly and institutional memory is short. A public archive of what we argued, when, and to whom is the only honest way to be judged on it later.

Read the source documents.

Every submission is maintained in the open repository alongside the standards themselves.

Submissions on GitHub All standards