One record across five programs
All 25 cells of the 5×5 matrix with the authority governing each, and the entitlement timeline drawn to scale.
for Special-education directors, program staff
open
The papers your reviewer will ask for.
Five references exist and are open below. Six briefs are planned and unwritten. This page says which is which, because an index that lists papers without saying which are real is worse than no index.
Every citation carries a status, and the page shows it.
A legal claim on this site resolves to an entry in the product’s citation registry, and that entry carries a verification state which travels with it onto the page. Where a source has not been pulled and quoted, the badge says so rather than the page implying otherwise. Nothing here is presented as more settled than it is.
References generated from the product
The registries the software runs on, rendered. Those tables are generated rather than retyped, so they cannot fall out of step with the build. Open, no form, no download gate.
Every deadline and its authority
All 21 clocks: value, unit, triggering event and citation — including the 5 that are district policy with no day count in law.
for Directors, counsel
open
Where the data sits
The 6 components, which side of the device boundary each sits on, whether each holds student data, and the gate condition for crossing it.
for District IT, security reviewers
open
Integration requirements by system
What each of 6 systems requires before a connector goes live, from each vendor’s own documentation, marked where a requirement is not public.
for District IT, data governance
open
The assessment catalog
8 domains, 42 subdomains, 134 measures by grade, each in the unit the product records it in.
for Psychologists, SLPs, OTs
open
Briefs that are planned and unwritten
A brief argues; a reference lists. These are the arguments a reviewer is entitled to and they do not exist yet. The reference beside each one carries the facts it would be built from.
Security & data architecture brief
Threat model, key handling and rotation, audit-log structure, backup format and recovery procedure, and the open items. The architecture itself is in R3.
for District IT, security reviewer
planned
Interoperability & integration plan
Standards support, the build sequence and its gates, and what a district must do at each. Per-vendor requirements are in R4.
for District IT, data governance
planned
Legal & compliance mapping
IDEA, WAC 392-172A and 392-190, Section 504 and the FERPA audit-trail requirement, mapped to product behavior. The clock register is in R2.
for Special-education director, counsel
planned
Pilot protocol & evaluation design
Baseline capture, metric definitions, evaluator independence, data ownership, exit and export, go/no-go criteria.
for Director, evaluator
planned
Measurement & scoring note
The scoring model, growth expectations and how a decision rule is armed. The catalog is in R5.
for Psychologists, SLPs, OTs
planned
Data dictionary & state form alignment
CEDARS field mapping, state model form coverage, export schemas.
for Data governance
planned
No brief above is available, and none is behind a form. When one is written it will appear here with a version and a date. Until then the fastest way to answer a security or interoperability question is to ask it — zac@cetused.com.