Evaluator score variance

Plain-language definition

A measure of dispersion among independent evaluator scores for the same declared factor and offer.

The definition is intentionally bounded. It identifies the property or role under discussion without converting terminology into a claim of deployment, recognition, personhood, citizenship, sovereignty, or authority.

Technical definition

Within the K01 knowledge model, Evaluator score variance is represented as a stable term object with code K01-TERM-246, canonical URL, claim status, topic owner, source links, related terms, last-reviewed date, research cutoff, and correction state. Relevant implementation components for the owning topic include high-consequence-event analysis; physical process models; independent protective systems; one-way data paths; safety envelopes; islanded operation; restoration checkpoints; after-action evidence.

Legal or policy use

Safety, reliability, nuclear, grid, occupational, environmental, and emergency obligations can impose different priorities and decision authorities on the same event.

When a statute, regulation, standard, or external institution uses a different definition, that source-specific meaning controls the analysis of that source. The project definition is not silently substituted into current law.

What the term implies

The term implies that the stated property should be evaluated using the evidence appropriate to consequence-driven engineering, critical functions, deterministic boundaries, graceful degradation, and verified recovery. It supports precise reference, comparison, data exchange, and correction across public prose and machine records.

What the term does not imply

It is not an award decision or proof that one evaluator is correct.

It also does not convert a valid signature, credential, database record, model hash, or website into factual truth or legal authority without additional evidence and a competent decision.

Commonly confused terms

• High Consequence Event
• Consequence-driven Cyber-informed Engineering
• IT/OT Convergence
• Unidirectional Gateway
• Safety Envelope
• Assurance Case

Confusion is resolved by asking which property is actually at issue: technical control, continuity, evidence, authority, legal recognition, operation, or normative status.

Operational test

1. Name the subject and purpose.
2. Identify the source definition and jurisdiction or technical context.
3. Collect evidence for the specific property.
4. Record currentness and limitations.
5. Route any governance, registry, assurance, or capital decision to the proper authority.

Related questions

• How should false positives be managed in nuclear and other high-consequence OT?
• What does Critical Function Assurance protect?
• What is a critical-datacenter assurance case?
• What does an open assurance defeater mean?
• What is a facility-adaptation workbook?
• Can the public workbook tool store protected topology or credentials?
• Does consensus scoring decide a procurement award?
• Why use a three-way facility-workbook merge?

Sources

• Consequence-driven Cyber-informed Engineering — Idaho National Laboratory; INL CCE program page; Official laboratory methodology description. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-15T16:00:00Z.
• NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3 — Guide to Operational Technology Security — National Institute of Standards and Technology; NIST SP 800-82 Rev. 3; NIST Final Publication. Exact claim-support entries: 1. Revalidated 2026-08-15T20:00:00Z.
• 10 CFR 73.54 — Protection of Digital Computer and Communication Systems and Networks — U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission / Electronic Code of Federal Regulations; 10 CFR 73.54, current eCFR; Federal regulation. Exact claim-support entries: 2. Revalidated 2026-08-15T16:00:00Z.

Stable term code: K01-TERM-246. Last reviewed 2026-08-16.