> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://experience-digital-transform.gitbook.io/experience-digital-transformation/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://experience-digital-transform.gitbook.io/experience-digital-transformation/roadmap/the-assessment-toolkit/q-int-the-interoperability-questionnaire-with-its-guide-for-the-respondent-and-its-guide-for-the.md). # Q-INT — The Interoperability questionnaire, with its guide for the respondent and its guide for the This is one of the five questionnaires of the assessment toolkit, one for each domain of the assessment. **Method step:** 3 of 9 — Put one questionnaire to each domain **Public anchor:** PAERA, the Public Administration Ecosystem Reference Architecture, version 1.0 (GovStack, 2024): section 5.3, questions 7 and 9, for what is asked; section 3.4.3 (Interoperability, one of PAERA's four foundational pillars), for the domain **Form of this instrument:** the team's blank questionnaire. It names no country, no institution and no person. Every blank (\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_) is filled in by the assessment team before the questionnaire is sent, or by the respondents when they answer. This is one of the five questionnaires of the assessment toolkit, one for each domain of the assessment. It covers interoperability: whether there is a national platform over which public bodies exchange data, whether the education bodies are members of it, which standards the exchange follows, whether the services on it are published so that others can find them, and which shared building blocks, including a shared way to make and receive payments, any public service can reach. It shares PAERA's question 9, on building blocks, with the Digital Identity questionnaire, which asks about the identity block. Its five sub-components, I1 to I5, are the parts of the questions. **Country:** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ · **Responding body:** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ · **Head of the responding unit (by role):** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ · **Facilitator:** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ · **Sent on:** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ · **Answers due on:** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ## Part 1 — Guide for the respondent ### What this questionnaire is for Your country is assessing the digital public infrastructure that its education services depend on: the shared systems, rules and bodies that many services use, such as a national identity, a data exchange between public bodies, and registers of people and schools. The assessment looks at five domains. This questionnaire covers one of them, **interoperability** (code INT). The assessment follows PAERA, the Public Administration Ecosystem Reference Architecture, version 1.0 (GovStack, 2024). Section 5.3 of PAERA lists the questions a national assessment of digital infrastructure should answer. This questionnaire expands two of these questions, given here in PAERA's own words: * Question 7: "What is national interoperability infrastructure status?" * Question 9: "What kind architectural building blocks are readily available? See list of building blocks in the Annex 1." PAERA gives the questions but not the detailed questions that follow them here. Those are the assessment team's own, drawn from its experience of assessments in several countries. They are grouped in five parts, one for each sub-component of the domain (I1, I2, I3, I4, I5), because the assessment later places each sub-component on a scale, and every answer you give can then be traced to the part it informs. ### Who answers The questionnaire goes to the body that operates the national data exchange platform, which answers together with the education ministry's ICT unit. Where a body operates a shared payment service or the national payment system, it is consulted on I5. | Who | What they bring | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | The body that operates the national data exchange platform (lead respondent) | The platform, its rules and standards, its members and the services on it | | The education ministry's ICT unit | How education systems exchange data today, and the ministry's plans to join the exchange | | The body that sets national interoperability standards, if separate | The interoperability framework, data definitions and code lists | | The operator of a shared payment service, or the central bank's payment systems department | How a public service can make or receive a payment | | The examination body and other education bodies that exchange data | The exchanges they take part in | Give each part of the questions to one section lead: the person in your unit who knows that subject best. The head of the responding unit reads the whole set of answers before signing it. ### What to prepare Collect these documents before you start writing. Most questions ask you to provide a document, and an answer with a document behind it counts for more than an answer without one. * The instrument that creates the national data exchange platform and its rules for members * The current list of members of the exchange, exported from the platform with its date * The technical standards members must follow, and the national interoperability framework, if one exists * The published catalogue of services available on the exchange, if one exists * The list of data exchanges between education systems today, with how each is made * The list of shared building blocks available to public bodies, and how each is reached * The rules under which a public service can request or make a payment through a shared service Where a document does not exist, say so in the answer. That is a useful answer, not a failure. ### How long it takes The table shows a typical case. Your team may need more or less time, depending on how many documents you already hold in one place. The assessment team asks for the answers by the date at the top of this questionnaire. | Stage | What the respondent team does | Working days (a typical case) | | ----- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | | 1 | Read this guide and the questions | 0.5 | | 2 | Form the team and give each part of the questions to a section lead | 1 | | 3 | Collect the documents each question asks for | 3 | | 4 | Draft the answers | 5 | | 5 | Review the answers together against the checklist at the end of this guide | 2 | | 6 | Obtain the signature of the head of the responding unit | 1 | | 7 | Submit the answers, with the documents attached | 0.5 | In a typical case this comes to about 13 working days from start to finish, though few people work on it full time. ### How to answer Each question opens with one short lead question, followed by prompts that say what to **describe**, what to **indicate** and what to **provide**. * **Answer every question**, even where the answer is "we do not have this". A blank answer cannot be told apart from a question that was skipped. * **Be specific.** Name the system, the document, the unit and the date. "Most schools" says less than "312 of 1,040 schools, by the count of March of last year". * **Name the document behind each statement**, and attach it. Where an answer rests on what someone knows rather than on a document, say so. * **Say when a figure is an estimate**, and who made it. * **Say plainly what is missing.** The assessment is not an inspection of your unit. Its purpose is to find out what the country must build, and a gap that is hidden cannot be planned for. * **Describe; do not score.** The assessment team places each sub-component on the scale later, from checked evidence. The table of stages below helps you describe where you are and where you aim to be. ### What each part of the questions covers | Part | What is assessed | Documents to look at | Whom to consult | | ----------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | I1 The exchange platform | Whether a national data exchange platform exists, who runs it, what it guarantees and how it is paid for | Instrument creating the platform; its rules; its budget | Operator of the exchange platform | | I2 Membership of the exchange | Which bodies are members, whether education bodies are among them, and what joining takes | Member list exported from the platform; joining procedure | Operator of the exchange platform; education ministry's ICT unit | | I3 Exchange standards | Which technical and data standards the exchange follows, and whether education's data definitions and code lists are published | Technical standards; interoperability framework; data definitions and code lists | Operator of the exchange platform; body that sets standards; statistics unit | | I4 The catalogue of services | Whether the services on the exchange are published so that others can find and reuse them, and how education systems exchange data today | Catalogue of services; list of exchanges between education systems | Operator of the exchange platform; education ministry's ICT unit | | I5 Shared building blocks, including the payment rail | Which shared building blocks any public body can reuse, how a service makes or receives a payment, and how reuse is decided | List of shared building blocks; payment rules; procurement and approval rules | Operator of the exchange platform; payment service operator; education ministry's ICT unit | ### The five stages, as they look for interoperability The assessment uses one scale for all five domains: the five stages of the UNDP Digital Development Compass, under the Compass's own names. The table says what each stage typically looks like in this domain. Use it to describe where your country stands today and where it aims to be. It is not the scoring rule: the assessment team scores against written criteria for each sub-component, after the answers have been checked. | Stage (UNDP Digital Development Compass) | What it looks like for interoperability | Your target, and by when | | ---------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | | Basic | No national exchange platform; data moves between bodies on paper or by e-mail | | | Opportunistic | An exchange platform in pilot or used by a few bodies; education exchanges data by file and spreadsheet | | | Systematic | An exchange platform in production, with published standards; education bodies are members and offer some services on it | | | Differentiating | A published catalogue of services; education reuses services of other bodies; shared building blocks, including payments, reachable on the exchange | | | Transformational | Every exchange of education data runs over the national platform; new services are built from shared building blocks by default | | ### Words used in this questionnaire | Word | What it means here | | ----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Data exchange platform | A national system over which public bodies send each other data securely, with every exchange logged; GovStack calls this function the Information Mediator | | Member | A body that has joined the exchange platform under its rules and can offer or use services on it | | Service on the exchange | A defined request one body can send to another over the platform, for example "confirm this person's identity number" | | Catalogue of services | A published list of the services available on the exchange, with what each does and who offers it | | Building block | A shared software component, such as identity, payments or registration, that many services reuse; PAERA's Annex 1 lists them | | Payment rail | The shared way a public service makes or receives a payment, for example through a payment building block or a national payment system | ### How your answers are used Your answers are one of three sources the assessment uses for this domain. The other two are a review of what your country has already published, made before this questionnaire was sent, and what the assessment team sees in sessions with your unit. 1. **Verification.** The facilitator reads every document you name and compares your answers with what the public record suggested. Where the two disagree, the facilitator asks the section lead in a short clarification session, and may ask to see a system working. 2. **Validation.** The verified positions are shown to all the bodies involved at a validation workshop. You can correct any position that misstates your answer. 3. **Scoring.** Only verified positions are scored. Each of the five sub-components is placed at one of the five stages, and the domain's score is the average of its sub-components. 4. **Gaps and the roadmap.** What is missing becomes a finding, each finding becomes a gap, and the gaps are ranked and put in order in the national roadmap. Your answers are used for the assessment only. A published report names bodies and units, not individual officials. ### Before you submit * Every question from I1.1 to the last has an answer, or the words "we do not have this". * Every answer names its document, or says that none exists. * Every document named is attached, or the answer says where the facilitator can see it. * Every estimate is marked as an estimate. * Every table in the questions has one row for each item it asks about. * The points from the desk review at the end of Part 2 are each confirmed, corrected or marked "we do not know". * The head of the responding unit has signed. ### Where to get help Ask the facilitator: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, reachable at \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. Ask early. A question put in the first week costs a short call; a question found at the end costs a second round of answers. ## Part 2 — The questions The questions are grouped by the five sub-components of interoperability. Write each answer in the space under its question, or in a separate document that uses the same question codes. ### I1 — The exchange platform **I1.1 Is there a national data exchange platform, who operates it, and since when?** Describe the platform and its operator. Indicate whether it is in pilot or in production, and since when. Provide the instrument that creates it. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I1.2 What does the platform guarantee to its members?** Describe what it does for each exchange, for example securing the connection, identifying both parties and logging the exchange. Indicate the technology or product it is built on. Provide the platform's technical description. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I1.3 Under what rules do bodies join and use the platform?** Describe the legal basis and the technical rules. Indicate whether joining is required for public bodies or voluntary. Provide the rules. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I1.4 How is the platform paid for and supported?** Describe the budget for running it and who provides support to members. Indicate whether members pay a fee. Provide the budget line. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ### I2 — Membership of the exchange **I2.1 Which bodies are members of the exchange platform today, and is the education ministry one of them?** Describe the members. Indicate for each education body whether it is a member, in the course of joining, or not a member. Provide the member list exported from the platform, with its date. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I2.2 Which services do education bodies offer or use on the platform?** Describe each service. Indicate whether it is in use, and how many requests it handled in the last month, if recorded. Provide the service list or a log extract. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I2.3 What must a body do to join, and how long does it take?** Describe the steps, from the request to the first exchange. Indicate how long the last body to join took. Provide the joining procedure. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **The education bodies on the exchange** (answer one row for each education body): | Education body | Member | Services it offers | Services it uses | Member since | | -------------- | ------------------ | ------------------ | ---------------- | ------------ | | | yes / joining / no | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ### I3 — Exchange standards **I3.1 Which technical standards must members follow?** Describe the standards for messages, service descriptions and security. Indicate whether they are published and binding. Provide the standards. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I3.2 Is there a national interoperability framework, and does it cover the meaning of data as well as its format?** Describe the framework and what it covers, for example shared definitions and code lists. Indicate whether it is approved. Provide the framework. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I3.3 Are education's data definitions and code lists published?** Describe the definitions and lists, for example school codes, grades and subjects. Indicate who keeps them and whether every system uses the same lists. Provide the published lists. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ### I4 — The catalogue of services **I4.1 Is there a published catalogue of the services available on the exchange?** Describe where it is published and what it says about each service. Indicate whether education services are in it. Provide the catalogue or its address. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I4.2 How do education systems exchange data with each other today, system by system?** Describe each exchange. Indicate whether it is made by a service on the exchange, a file export, a spreadsheet or on paper. Provide the list of exchanges. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I4.3 How is a new service described, approved and added to the catalogue?** Describe the steps. Indicate who approves. Provide the procedure. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **The exchanges of education data today** (answer one row for each exchange): | From | To | Data exchanged | How | How often | | ---- | -- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | | | | | service on the exchange / file export / spreadsheet / paper | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ### I5 — Shared building blocks, including the payment rail **I5.1 Which shared building blocks can any public body reuse today?** Describe each building block, the body that runs it and how a service reaches it; use the list of building blocks in PAERA's Annex 1 as a checklist. Indicate which of them education services use. Provide the list of shared building blocks. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I5.2 How do education services make or receive payments today, for example grants to learners, allowances or fees?** Describe how each payment is made, for example through a shared payment service, through a bank, by list or in cash. Indicate whether any payment is requested over the exchange platform. Provide the payment procedure. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I5.3 How can a public service reach the payment systems of the country?** Describe the route, for example a shared payment building block, a direct connection to a payment system, or a contract with a bank. Indicate the rules and any cost. Provide the rules. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **I5.4 When a new education service needs a component, how is it decided whether to reuse a shared building block or build one?** Describe the rule or practice. Indicate one recent case and what was decided. Provide the rule, or say that there is none. *Answer:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ *Documents:* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **The shared building blocks** (answer one row for each building block): | Building block | Exists | Run by | Reachable on the exchange | Used by education | | -------------- | ----------------- | ------ | ------------------------- | ----------------- | | | yes / partly / no | | yes / no | yes / no | | | | | | | | | | | | | ### Points from the desk review to confirm or correct Before sending this questionnaire, the assessment team reviewed what your country has already published. The points below are what that review suggested about this domain. They are claims to check, not findings. For each point, say whether it is right, and give your evidence. | Desk point (code) | What the public record suggested | Your answer: confirmed / corrected / we do not know | Your evidence | | ----------------- | -------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | | AF-INT-\_\_ | | | | | AF-INT-\_\_ | | | | | AF-INT-\_\_ | | | | ### Signature I have read these answers and confirm them as the position of the responding unit. **Head of the responding unit (by role):** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ · **Signature:** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ · **Date:** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **Documents attached (list):** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ ## Part 3 — Guide for the facilitator ### Your role You are the member of the assessment team who sends this questionnaire, helps the respondents through it, checks what comes back and writes the verified position for every point. You do not answer for the respondents and you do not argue them towards an answer. Your job is to make sure that every position that reaches scoring is true and that its evidence is on record. ### Before the session 1. **Name the bodies.** Fill in the map of the bodies involved (the templates for verification in this toolkit, `../verification-templates.md`) for this domain. These are the kinds of body to look for: | Kind of body | Its part in this domain | | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | | The operator of the exchange platform | Lead respondent; holds the member list and the log | | The education ministry's ICT unit | Runs the ministry's systems and their exchanges | | The examination body | Exchanges candidate data with schools and the ministry | | The operator of a shared payment service, or the central bank | Sets the route for public payments | | The body that sets interoperability standards | Holds the framework and code lists | 2. **Fill in the blanks** at the top of the questionnaire and in Part 1, "Where to get help". 3. **Attach the desk points.** Copy into the last table of Part 2 the desk gaps about INT from the desk review (the questions of the question bank, `../question-bank.md`, whose codes begin INT-Q), lowest confidence first. They tell the respondents where the public record is thin or may be wrong. The question bank names, for each of its questions, the sub-component it informs, so each desk point can be put to the part of this questionnaire that covers the same sub-component. 4. **Send the questionnaire to the head of the responding unit**, with this guide's Part 1, and agree a date for the answers. Offer a short call in the first week. 5. **Plan the sessions** in the session plan of the templates for verification: one clarification session for this questionnaire, of about two hours, and a technical session wherever a system has to be seen working. Name the points to clarify and the evidence to bring. ### How to run the session The session takes place after the answers have come back and you have read every document they name. Its purpose is to settle the points where the answers, the documents and the desk review do not agree, and to fill the answers that are thin. 1. **Open** with the purpose: to check, not to grade. Say that the respondents will see every verified position again at the validation workshop. 2. **Take the points in the order of the sub-components**, so that the record of the session follows the questionnaire. 3. **For each point**, read the lead question, read back the answer in brief, then ask what would show it: "Can we see the document?", "Can you show us the screen?", "Who keeps that record?" 4. **Ask, do not suggest.** Ask "How are records matched?" rather than "You use the identity number, don't you?" A suggested answer is often accepted to be polite. 5. **Record "we do not have this" as an answer**, with the same care as any other. It is often the most useful answer in the session. 6. **Close** by reading back the points that remain open, who will send what, and by when. ### What to look for, part by part | Part | A strong answer shows | A common error | Evidence that settles it | | ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | I1 The exchange platform | A platform in production, created by an instrument in force, with rules for members and a budget for running it | A platform in pilot is reported as in production | The platform's administration screen seen in a session (level 1); the instrument (level 2) | | I2 Membership of the exchange | The education ministry and the examination body are members and each runs at least one service on the platform | A body that has signed an agreement to join, but runs no service, is reported as a member | The member list exported in a session (level 1) | | I3 Exchange standards | Published and binding technical standards, an approved framework that covers the meaning of data, and education code lists used by every system | Standards in a project's design document are reported as national standards | The published standards and code lists (level 2) | | I4 The catalogue of services | A published catalogue lists every service on the exchange, and education's exchanges run as services in it | The catalogue is described as published, though it is an internal list | The catalogue seen online (level 1); the list of exchanges checked against the platform's log (level 1) | | I5 Shared building blocks, including the payment rail | Shared building blocks, payments among them, are reachable on the exchange, and a rule requires reuse to be considered before building | A payment system that exists in the country is reported as reachable by public services, though no route for them exists | A payment request seen working (level 1); the rules for reaching the payment service (level 2) | ### How to record answers and evidence Keep one record for this questionnaire, one row for each question. Fill it in while you read the answers and complete it after the session. Every row that reaches scoring has the status verified or corrected. A disputed row goes to the final validation workshop first. | Question | The answer, in brief | Evidence named | Evidence level (1 to 5) | Agrees with the desk review? (yes / no / no desk point) | Status (verified / corrected / disputed) | | -------- | -------------------- | -------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | | I1.1 | | | | | | | I1.2 | | | | | | | I1.3 | | | | | | | I1.4 | | | | | | | I2.1 | | | | | | | I2.2 | | | | | | | I2.3 | | | | | | | I3.1 | | | | | | | I3.2 | | | | | | | I3.3 | | | | | | | I4.1 | | | | | | | I4.2 | | | | | | | I4.3 | | | | | | | I5.1 | | | | | | | I5.2 | | | | | | | I5.3 | | | | | | | I5.4 | | | | | | Give each piece of evidence its level on the evidence ladder. When sources disagree, the higher level wins. A verified position needs either one source at level 1, or two independent sources at level 2 or 3. | Level | Kind of evidence | Example | | ----- | ----------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | | 1 | A system seen working | A demonstration, an export, a log | | 2 | An official document in force | A law, a signed regulation, an approved budget | | 3 | Official statistics | A published yearbook | | 4 | An internal report | A unit's annual report, a project report | | 5 | A statement in an interview | What an official says in a session | Where two sources at the same level still disagree, record both, mark the point disputed, and take it to the validation workshop. Each desk point and each answer that the session changes goes into the reconciled-response table of the templates for verification, with its verified position, its evidence and its status. ### How the answers feed the scoring Scoring is method step 5. It uses only verified positions; an answer that was not checked, and a desk result on its own, are never scored. The rule is the same for all five domains: 1. Each sub-component has written criteria at three reference levels, Basic, Systematic and Transformational, in the scoring criteria of this toolkit (`../scoring-criteria.md`). 2. The facilitator places each sub-component at one of the five stages from its verified positions. A sub-component that meets part of the Systematic criterion is Opportunistic; one that meets part of the Transformational criterion is Differentiating. 3. Each stage scores the middle of its unit on the Compass's range from 0 to 5: Basic 0.5, Opportunistic 1.5, Systematic 2.5, Differentiating 3.5, Transformational 4.5. 4. The domain's score is the average of its sub-components' scores, to one decimal place. Its stage is the unit the score falls in: below 1.0 Basic, from 1.0 Opportunistic, from 2.0 Systematic, from 3.0 Differentiating, from 4.0 Transformational. The questions are grouped so that each one informs one sub-component. Carry the verified positions into this sheet, part by part: | Sub-component | Questions that inform it | Verified positions used (record rows) | Stage | Score | | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------- | ----- | ----- | | I1 The exchange platform | I1.1, I1.2, I1.3, I1.4 | | | | | I2 Membership of the exchange | I2.1, I2.2, I2.3 | | | | | I3 Exchange standards | I3.1, I3.2, I3.3 | | | | | I4 The catalogue of services | I4.1, I4.2, I4.3 | | | | | I5 Shared building blocks, including the payment rail | I5.1, I5.2, I5.3, I5.4 | | | | | **INT domain score** | average of the five scores above, to one decimal place | | | | Write what is missing as findings, numbered F-INT-1, F-INT-2 and so on. Each finding names the sub-component it was scored under and the evidence behind it. The findings go to the domain report and from there to the gap register of method step 6. ### Difficult situations | What happens | What to do | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Membership is claimed for a body that runs no service | Ask for the member list exported from the platform and a log extract. Record membership and services separately. | | The exchange is described as a whole, and education's own position is not stated | Ask the question for each education body in turn. The position of the exchange as a whole is not a position of education's membership. | | The answers come back late or only in part | Hold the session on what has come back, and name the open questions and their owners at its end. Do not score a sub-component whose questions are all unanswered; record it as not assessed and say so in the domain report. | | A body declines to show a system or a document | Record the answer at the level of evidence you have, usually level 5, and mark the point disputed if another source contradicts it. Raise it with the validation chair, not in the session. | ### Checks before the answers go to scoring * Every question has a row in the record, and every row has a status. * Every desk point about this domain is verified, corrected or disputed. * Every disputed point is on the agenda of the validation workshop. * Every sub-component has at least one verified position, or is recorded as not assessed. * The signed answers and their documents are filed with the record. --- # 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://experience-digital-transform.gitbook.io/experience-digital-transformation/roadmap/the-assessment-toolkit/q-int-the-interoperability-questionnaire-with-its-guide-for-the-respondent-and-its-guide-for-the.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.