> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.therisk.global/organization/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.therisk.global/organization/governance-in-operation/decision-rights.md). # Decision rights Who decides what in the Nexus programme: the division of accountability between GCRI, GRF, GRA, national structures and competent authorities, the Nexus Universe gates, and the twenty-nine decisions o **Where this fits.** Governance in operation › all levels · all six pillars · GCRI, GRF, GRA, national structures, Nexus Standards bodies and competent authorities · gates G0 to G7 · canonical page. ## In brief Every decision in the programme has one accountable decider, and that decider is on the record. Three registers set out who decides: * the **division of accountability** between the institutions, the national structures and the competent authorities, published on the GCRI and GRF sites; * the **gates of the programme year**, G0 to G7, which GRF records as steward of [Nexus Universe](/organization/programme/universe.md); * the **decision-rights matrix** of the [Nexus Standards](/organization/institutions/nexus-standards.md), DR-01 to DR-29, which is proposed. **Boundary.** Public, regulatory, fiduciary and operational decisions are never taken inside the programme. "Decisions and execution remain with the relevant government, operator or licensed institution" ([National Nexus](https://therisk.global/consortium/national/)). The competent authority stands outside the programme. "The authority decides; the programme informs." ## The division of accountability The Nexus Consortium model, as published on [How Nexus Consortium works](https://therisk.global/consortium/), sets one accountable party for each function: | Function | Accountable party | Works with | What it means | | --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Integrated consortium secretariat | GCRI Canada within the approved lead mandate | GRF, GRA, national and regional structures | One coordinated programme with separate institutional responsibilities. | | Evidence, methods and technical assistance | GCRI technical and evidence stewardship | Researchers, domain experts, national source authorities | Problems become testable questions and reusable capability. | | Leadership, convening and Universe governance | GRF within its instruments | GCRI technical office, GRA readiness interface, hosts, national delegates | Year-round participation culminates in structured annual work. | | Finance, insurance and development readiness | GRA | Competent financial institutions, supervisors, public finance, domain teams | Risk evidence becomes useful diligence material, not an approval or a transaction. | | National agenda and local participation | Competent [National Nexus](/organization/governance-in-operation/national-nexus.md) structures | National institutions, leaders, working groups, communities, authorities | National ownership precedes federation. | | Scientific and editorial acceptance | Qualified, conflict-managed reviewers and the publisher | Source owners, country reviewers, independent experts | Institutional influence cannot decide a scientific conclusion. | | Official decisions and execution | The relevant government, operator or licensed institution | Bounded Nexus interfaces where agreed | Nexus prepares evidence and supports lawful continuation. | Each institution states its own boundary. GCRI "does not regulate, certify, license or approve". GRF "does not regulate, finance, procure or certify". GRA "does not lend, underwrite, rate, invest, advise on or arrange transactions. Readiness is not approval" ([GCRI, GRF and GRA](https://therisk.global/consortium/institutions/)). The same division appears on [Board and governance](https://therisk.global/about/board-and-governance/), [GRF in the Consortium](https://globalriskforum.com/about/consortium-role/) and the [Consortium finance interface](https://globalriskalliance.com/engagement/consortium/). ## The gates of the programme year GRF, as steward of Nexus Universe, holds four kinds of decision: the mandate (G0), admission (G1), gate decisions, and publication (G6). It holds them "modelled on exercise direction", separate from the controllers and evaluators of an exercise ([Programme governance](https://globalriskforum.com/nexus-universe/grf-role/)). This follows the separation of exercise direction, control and evaluation in established exercise practice, which GRF cites from the WHO *Simulation Exercise Manual*. | Gate | Decision | Phase | | ---- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------- | | G0 | Annual programme authorised | Planning, Q1 | | G1 | Missions admitted | Readiness preparation, Q2 | | G2 | Data and resources qualified | Readiness preparation, Q2 | | G3 | Build accepted for exercise | Controlled build, Q2 | | G4 | Controlled live operation authorised | Action Week, Q3 | | G5 | Evidence sealed and stand-down recorded | Closeout, Q3 | | G6 | Publication authorised | Reporting, Q4 | | G7 | Renewal reviewed | Renewal, Q4 | "A cycle gate is a programme decision. It is not a public-authority approval, a certification or a deployment authorisation." The phases and handoffs around each gate are in [The programme year](/organization/programme/the-programme-year.md). ## The Nexus Standards decision rights The proposed working model of the Nexus Standards has one formula: "Councils decide; working groups draft; everything else is open. Global councils decide global matters, national councils decide national matters, and neither decides for the other." Its matrix gives each of twenty-nine decisions exactly one decider.
Twenty-nine decisions of the Nexus Standards working model and the part each body plays in them. Each decision has exactly one decider (D). Global matters are decided by the Global Standards Council, the technical committees, the working groups, the editors, the Secretariat, the registrar or the panels; national matters (adoption mode, national profile and deviations, national working groups, host institutions, regional seat elections) are decided by the National Standards Council; the National Leadership Council decides only which national priorities become proposals for new work. Letters: D decides, R proposes or recommends, C consulted with a recorded objection, A hears the appeal or review, P performs or operates, O open to any person, I informed.

Who decides each standards decision. Proposed working model: no body named here is constituted by the register, and until the Global Standards Council ratifies it the Secretariat runs it as the interim procedure. Global councils decide global matters, national councils decide national matters, and neither decides for the other. Source: Nexus Standards governance register, working model and decision-rights matrix (PROPOSED; proposal NXS-STD-PC-000008); nexustandards.com/governance/. As of 2026-10-21.

Figure data (text alternative) | Row | Global Standards Council | Technical Management Divisions | Technical committees | Working groups | Editors | Conformance panel | Ethics and appeals panel | Secretariat (GCRI Canada) | Registrar | National Nexus Consortium | National Standards Council | National Leadership Council | National Working Groups | Regional Nexus Consortium | Any person | | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------------ | -------------------- | -------------- | ------- | ----------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------- | ---------- | | DR-01 Open a public call | I | R | R | | | | | D | | | R | R | | | O | | DR-02 Accept a new work item | I | C | D | R | P | | | | | | | R | R | | O | | DR-03 Charter a global working group | I | C | D | | | | | P | | | | | | | O | | DR-04 Content of a working draft | | | | D | P | | | | | | | | R | | O | | DR-05 Dispose of a comment | | | A | C | D | | | | | | | | | | O | | DR-06 Enter review or last call | | C | D | R | | | | P | | | | | | | O | | DR-07 Proposed stage after last call | | I | D | R | | | | | | | C | | | | | | DR-08 Candidate stage | | | D | R | | C | | | | | | | | | O | | DR-09 Adopt a Nexus Standard | D | C | R | | | | A | P | P | | C | | | | I | | DR-10 Adopt an external open standard | D | C | R | | | | | | | | C | | | | O | | DR-11 Errata | I | | D | | R | | | | | | | | | | O | | DR-12 Emergency correction | D | | R | | | | A | | | | | | | | I | | DR-13 Systematic review outcome | D | | R | | | | | | | | C | | | | O | | DR-14 Conformance claim rules | D | | C | | | R | | | | | C | | | | O | | DR-15 Process and participation policy | D | | | | | | C | R | | | C | | | | O | | DR-16 Liaison, category A | D | R | C | | | | | P | | | | | | | | | DR-17 Liaison, categories B and C | I | D | R | | | | | P | | | | | | | | | DR-18 Record a jurisdiction's activation | I | | | | | | A | D | P | R | | | | | | | DR-19 Recognise a national council | D | | | | | | A | R | | R | | | | | | | DR-20 National adoption mode | I | | | | | | | | | | D | C | R | | O | | DR-21 National profile and deviations | | | | | | | | | | | D | C | R | | O | | DR-22 Charter a National Working Group | | | | | | | | I | | | D | R | | | | | DR-23 National priorities as proposals | | | | | | | | | | | C | D | R | | O | | DR-24 Designate a Host Institution | | | | | | | | I | | | D | C | | | | | DR-25 Elect a regional Council seat | I | | | | | | | P | | | D | | | P | | | DR-26 Technical appeal | A | D | R | | | | | | | | | | | | O | | DR-27 Process appeal or complaint | | | | | | | D | P | | | | | | | O | | DR-28 Allocate a code or a UNI | | | | | R | | | | D | | | | | | I | | DR-29 Publish an adopted release | R | | | | | | | D | P | | | | | | I |
Five invariants hold across the matrix: 1. Each decision has exactly one decider. 2. The Global Standards Council has no say on a national decision. 3. No national body decides a global adoption. 4. The [National Leadership Council](/organization/governance-in-operation/nlc.md) never decides adoption, technical content or conformance. 5. Technology-support parties hold no right beyond any person's. A single technology-support liaison attends open sessions without a vote or a chair. **Who decides at each stage of a standard.** Each stage of a standard has its own decider: * the technical committees accept work items (DR-02), move drafts into review (DR-06) and set the stage after last call (DR-07) and the candidate stage (DR-08); * the working groups decide the content of their drafts (DR-04), and the editors dispose of comments (DR-05); * the Global Standards Council adopts a standard after a 90-day last call by two thirds of all voting members, with no unresolved national objection or a recorded override (DR-09). Two independent implementations and published test vectors must exist before adoption. National adoption then belongs to each [National Standards Council](/organization/governance-in-operation/national-standards-council.md) (DR-20 to DR-25). **Appeals.** A technical appeal goes from the working-group co-chairs to the technical committee, then to a Technical Management Division (DR-26), then to the Global Standards Council on the record. A process appeal goes to the Ethics, Conflicts and Appeals Panel (DR-27). It is filed within thirty days, acknowledged within five and decided within sixty. The standards gates G1 to G7 of the working model (work item accepted, draft ready, ready for last call, last call closed, implementation evidence, adoption, systematic review) are different from the gates G0 to G7 of the programme year. They share numbers only. ## Why decision rights are written this way When interdependent risks cross institutional boundaries, accountability fails at the seams between institutions. That is the point the OECD Recommendation on the Governance of Critical Risks addresses when it calls for clear roles and responsibilities across government and operators (OECD, 2014). The separation of evidence, deliberation and allocation, and the single decider per decision, keep each claim attributable. A modelled estimate cannot appear as consensus, and a dialogue outcome cannot appear as investment readiness ([Nexus Consortium relationship](https://globalriskforum.com/global-cooperation/consortium/)). ## Sources * OECD (2014). *Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks*. OECD/LEGAL/0405. [legalinstruments.oecd.org](https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0405) * GCRI: [Board and governance](https://therisk.global/about/board-and-governance/); [National Nexus](https://therisk.global/consortium/national/). * GRF: [GRF in the Consortium](https://globalriskforum.com/about/consortium-role/); [Programme governance](https://globalriskforum.com/nexus-universe/grf-role/); [Nexus Consortium relationship](https://globalriskforum.com/global-cooperation/consortium/). * GRA: [Consortium finance interface](https://globalriskalliance.com/engagement/consortium/). * Nexus Standards: [Governance](https://nexustandards.com/governance/). Governance register, working model and decision-rights matrix (PROPOSED; proposal NXS-STD-PC-000008). * [Sources library](/organization/reference/sources.md). --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://docs.therisk.global/organization/governance-in-operation/decision-rights.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.