AIGO — Improvement Schema Documentation

1. Document Purpose

This document describes the machine-readable AIGO Improvement Schema. The schema provides the structured representation of continual-improvement activities within the AIGO AI Governance Operating Framework. It is intended to support:

improvement identification;
improvement sources;
observations and opportunities;
problem definition;
root-cause analysis;
prioritization;
urgency;
improvement options;
action planning;
implementation;
change management;
implementation risk;
verification;
effectiveness evaluation;
risk outcomes;
control outcomes;
monitoring outcomes;
stakeholder outcomes;
assurance;
evidence;
lessons learned;
standardization;
portfolio impact;
closure;
follow-up;
management review; and
traceability.

The JSON schema defines structural requirements. This documentation explains the intended meaning, governance context, validation expectations, and traceability model for improvement records.

2. Schema Information

Field	Value
Schema	AIGO Improvement Schema
Schema Identifier	`https://aigo.example/schema/improvement/v0.1`
Schema Version	`0.1`
JSON Schema Dialect	JSON Schema Draft 2020-12
Object Type	`IMPROVEMENT`
File	`12-AIGO-Improvement-Schema-v0.1.json`
Status	Draft
Framework	AIGO — AI Governance Operating Framework

3. Scope

The Improvement Schema applies to continual-improvement activities arising from AIGO governance and operational processes. Improvement opportunities may originate from:

management review;
risk assessment;
control assessment;
assurance;
audit;
incident management;
monitoring;
change management;
stakeholder feedback;
affected-person feedback;
regulatory developments;
legal review;
technology developments;
model evaluation;
data assessment;
supplier review;
lessons learned;
maturity assessment; or
strategic review.

Improvements may address governance, processes, controls, technology, data, models, human oversight, competence, evidence, monitoring, assurance, suppliers, or other AIGO domains.

4. Object Model

The primary object represented by this schema is:

IMPROVEMENT

An Improvement record represents a defined opportunity or action intended to improve the suitability, adequacy, effectiveness, resilience, efficiency, or maturity of an AIGO-governed arrangement. The Improvement record should remain distinct from:

the source finding or observation;
the Risk record;
the Control record;
the Change record;
the Assessment record;
the Assurance record;
the Management Review record;
the Evidence record; and
the Retirement record.

Related records should normally be connected through stable identifiers.

5. Core Identity

An Improvement record should contain stable identity information. Key fields include:

id;
objectType;
objectVersion;
schemaVersion;
improvement title;
source;
objective;
owner; and
status.

Example:

{
  "id": "IMPROVE-001",
  "objectType": "IMPROVEMENT",
  "objectVersion": "1.0",
  "schemaVersion": "0.1",
  "status": "OPEN"
}

The improvement identifier should remain stable throughout the improvement lifecycle. A materially separate improvement should normally receive a new identifier.

6. Improvement Purpose

The improvement record should clearly state what is intended to change or improve. The objective should explain:

the current condition;
the desired condition;
the reason improvement is needed;
the expected benefit;
the governance significance; and
the intended measurable or observable outcome.

An objective should be sufficiently specific to support later verification.

7. Improvement Sources

An improvement may originate from one or more governance sources. The schema supports source categories including:

MANAGEMENT_REVIEW
RISK_ASSESSMENT
CONTROL_ASSESSMENT
ASSURANCE
AUDIT
INCIDENT
MONITORING
CHANGE_MANAGEMENT
STAKEHOLDER_FEEDBACK
USER_FEEDBACK
AFFECTED_PERSON_FEEDBACK
REGULATORY_CHANGE
LEGAL_REVIEW
TECHNOLOGY_DEVELOPMENT
MODEL_EVALUATION
DATA_ASSESSMENT
SUPPLIER_REVIEW
LESSONS_LEARNED
MATURITY_ASSESSMENT
STRATEGIC_REVIEW
OTHER

The exact enumeration defined in the JSON schema is authoritative. Where multiple sources contribute to the same improvement, they should all be traceable.

8. Source Record Relationships

The improvement should reference the records that generated the improvement opportunity. Examples include:

INC-004
ASSURE-003
RISK-002
CTRL-005
MGMTREV-002
MON-007

The source record remains authoritative for the original observation, finding, incident, or decision. The Improvement record captures the resulting improvement lifecycle.

9. Current Condition

The record should describe the condition that currently exists. Examples include:

incomplete governance coverage;
ineffective control;
outdated procedure;
excessive incident rate;
insufficient monitoring;
inadequate evidence;
recurring assessment findings;
regulatory gap;
capability weakness; or
another documented condition.

The current condition should be evidence-based where possible.

10. Desired Condition

The desired condition should describe what success looks like after the improvement. The desired condition may include:

stronger control effectiveness;
reduced risk;
improved monitoring coverage;
improved evidence quality;
reduced incident recurrence;
improved stakeholder outcomes;
improved governance maturity;
improved compliance; or
another defined outcome.

The desired condition should be capable of later verification.

11. Problem Statement

Where the improvement addresses a defined problem, the problem statement should identify:

what is wrong;
why it matters;
who or what is affected;
evidence supporting the problem; and
consequences of not addressing it.

A concise problem statement helps prevent improvement activities from becoming solutions without a clearly understood problem.

12. Opportunity Statement

Not all improvements arise from failures. An improvement may represent an opportunity to:

improve efficiency;
simplify governance;
strengthen resilience;
improve assurance;
enhance transparency;
improve user experience;
reduce unnecessary risk;
adopt better technology;
improve sustainability; or
increase governance maturity.

Opportunity-based improvements should have an explicit rationale.

13. Root-Cause Analysis

Where an improvement is driven by a deficiency or recurring problem, root-cause analysis should be considered. The schema supports:

primary cause;
cause category;
confidence;
analysis method; and
analysis narrative.

Potential root-cause categories include:

governance;
process;
procedure;
control;
risk management;
monitoring;
assurance;
incident;
change management;
data;
model;
technology;
human;
training;
supplier; and
regulatory.

Root-cause analysis should distinguish validated causes from hypotheses.

14. Contributing Causes

Multiple contributing causes may exist. Examples include:

unclear ownership;
insufficient competence;
incomplete requirements;
inadequate tooling;
weak evidence;
poor system integration;
insufficient testing;
supplier limitations;
process complexity; or
resource constraints.

Contributing causes should be recorded where they materially affect treatment or recurrence.

15. Improvement Type

The schema supports classification of improvement activities. Possible categories include:

GOVERNANCE
RISK_MANAGEMENT
CONTROL
MONITORING
ASSURANCE
INCIDENT
CHANGE_MANAGEMENT
PROCESS
PROCEDURE
DOCUMENTATION
EVIDENCE
TECHNOLOGY
DATA
MODEL
HUMAN_OVERSIGHT
TRAINING_CAPABILITY
SUPPLIER
REGULATORY_COMPLIANCE
STRATEGIC
OTHER

The authoritative enumeration in the JSON schema is controlling. Improvement type should support reporting and prioritization.

16. Improvement Owner

Every active improvement should have an accountable owner. The owner is responsible for:

defining the improvement;
coordinating prioritization;
obtaining approvals;
assigning actions;
monitoring progress;
ensuring implementation;
arranging verification;
evaluating effectiveness; and
closing the improvement.

Action execution may be delegated. Accountability should remain explicit.

The schema may distinguish:

improvement owner;
sponsor;
action owner;
reviewer; and
approval authority.

This is useful where improvements are cross-functional or strategically significant. Roles should be aligned with the organization’s governance structure.

18. Improvement Lifecycle

A typical improvement lifecycle is:

Opportunity Identified
        ↓
Problem / Opportunity Defined
        ↓
Root Cause
        ↓
Prioritization
        ↓
Option Analysis
        ↓
Objective
        ↓
Action Plan
        ↓
Approval
        ↓
Implementation
        ↓
Verification
        ↓
Effectiveness Evaluation
        ↓
Standardization
        ↓
Closure
        ↓
Follow-Up

The actual lifecycle should follow the applicable AIGO continual-improvement process.

19. Improvement Status

The schema supports controlled improvement status. Typical conceptual states include:

IDENTIFIED
PROPOSED
UNDER_REVIEW
APPROVED
PLANNED
IN_PROGRESS
BLOCKED
IMPLEMENTED
VERIFICATION
EFFECTIVE
PARTIALLY_EFFECTIVE
INEFFECTIVE
CLOSED
DEFERRED
CANCELLED
REOPENED

The exact status values defined in the JSON schema are authoritative. Status indicates lifecycle state and does not independently establish authorization.

20. Priority

Improvement priority should reflect governance significance. Priority may consider:

risk reduction;
regulatory significance;
control criticality;
affected-person scale;
urgency;
strategic importance;
cost;
feasibility; and
organizational capacity.

The priority should have an explicit rationale.

21. Urgency

Urgency should distinguish whether action is:

immediate;
near-term;
planned; or
long-term.

Time-sensitive improvements should identify relevant deadlines. An improvement may be high priority but not immediately executable due to dependencies or resource constraints.

22. Option Analysis

Where more than one approach is possible, the improvement record may compare options. Options may be assessed against:

effectiveness;
risk reduction;
cost;
feasibility;
dependencies;
implementation complexity;
unintended consequences;
sustainability; and
strategic alignment.

Option analysis is particularly useful for significant governance improvements.

23. Selected Option

Where alternatives were assessed, the selected option should identify:

selected option;
rationale;
decision authority; and
decision date where applicable.

The selection should remain traceable to the alternative options considered.

24. Improvement Objective

The objective is the central statement of intended improvement. A strong objective should identify:

desired outcome;
affected area;
expected benefit;
relevant constraints;
target timeframe; and
success criteria.

The objective should be specific enough to support effectiveness assessment.

25. Success Criteria

Success criteria define how the organization will determine whether the improvement worked. Criteria may include:

risk reduction;
control effectiveness;
process performance;
monitoring performance;
incident reduction;
evidence quality;
stakeholder outcome;
compliance status;
maturity improvement;
operational performance; or
other measurable outcomes.

Success criteria should be established before implementation where practical.

26. Action Plan

An improvement may contain multiple actions. Each action should identify, where applicable:

action identifier;
action description;
action type;
owner;
dependency;
priority;
target date;
status; and
completion evidence.

Action types may include:

correction;
corrective action;
preventive action;
control change;
process change;
procedure change;
technical change;
documentation change;
training;
monitoring; and
assurance.

27. Resources

Improvements should consider required resources. Resources may include:

people;
technology;
budget;
expertise;
training;
external support;
infrastructure; and
management attention.

Insufficient resources should be treated as an explicit dependency or risk rather than hidden within the plan.

28. Dependencies

Improvements may depend on:

approvals;
projects;
technology;
supplier action;
governance decisions;
data;
staffing;
training;
other improvements; or
related changes.

Dependencies should have identifiable owners and status. A blocked dependency may affect the target completion date.

29. Improvement Implementation

Implementation should document:

status;
start date;
completion date;
activities completed;
issues;
blockers;
deviations; and
implementation evidence.

The implementation should remain aligned with the approved objective and action plan.

30. Implementation Deviations

A deviation may occur when implementation differs from the approved plan. Material deviations should identify:

deviation;
impact;
owner;
escalation;
approval where required; and
evidence.

A material deviation may require reassessment or change management.

31. Change Management Relationship

An improvement may require changes to:

AI systems;
models;
data;
controls;
monitoring;
procedures;
governance;
infrastructure;
suppliers; or
business processes.

Where change-management requirements apply, the Improvement record should reference the Change record. The Change Schema remains authoritative for formal change governance.

32. Implementation Risk

Improvement implementation may create temporary or new risks. The record may identify:

implementation risks;
risk levels;
treatments;
owners;
temporary risk; and
mitigating controls.

Implementation risk should be managed separately from the original problem or opportunity.

33. Verification

Verification determines whether the improvement was implemented as intended. Verification may use:

evidence review;
testing;
control assessment;
monitoring;
independent validation;
assurance;
interview;
observation; or
performance comparison.

The verification plan should identify:

objective;
methods;
owner;
date;
criteria; and
expected evidence.

34. Effectiveness Evaluation

Effectiveness evaluation determines whether the improvement achieved its intended outcome. Possible outcomes include:

EFFECTIVE
PARTIALLY_EFFECTIVE
INEFFECTIVE
NOT_YET_DETERMINED

The exact enumeration defined in the JSON schema is authoritative. Effectiveness should be evaluated against the success criteria established for the improvement.

35. Unintended Consequences

An improvement may produce unexpected effects. The effectiveness evaluation should consider:

new risks;
control degradation;
stakeholder impacts;
operational disruption;
new incidents;
increased complexity;
unintended bias; or
other undesirable outcomes.

Unintended consequences may require additional improvement, risk treatment, or change.

36. Sustainability

Effectiveness should consider whether the improvement is sustainable. Sustainability may depend on:

ownership;
resources;
competence;
documentation;
monitoring;
control integration;
maintenance;
technology support; and
organizational adoption.

An improvement that works temporarily but cannot be sustained should not automatically be considered fully effective.

37. Risk Outcome

Where the improvement addresses risk, the record may capture:

risk before;
risk after;
risk reduction;
residual risk;
risk acceptance requirements; and
associated risk-acceptance record.

The objective is to demonstrate whether the improvement materially affected risk.

38. Control Outcome

Where the improvement affects controls, the record may compare:

control condition before;
control condition after;
control effectiveness;
result; and
rationale.

Possible outcomes include:

IMPROVED
PARTIALLY_IMPROVED
UNCHANGED
DETERIORATED

A deterioration should trigger appropriate governance response.

39. Monitoring Outcome

An improvement may affect monitoring requirements. The record may compare:

indicator values before;
indicator values after;
targets;
thresholds;
monitoring status; and
overall monitoring result.

Improvement may require permanent monitoring changes or temporary enhanced monitoring.

40. Stakeholder Outcome

Improvements should consider the effect on relevant stakeholders. Outcomes may include:

positive feedback;
negative feedback;
affected-person outcomes;
complaint changes;
improved usability;
reduced harm;
unintended consequences; or
no material change.

Where stakeholder engagement is required, the record should reference relevant engagement records.

41. Assurance Relationship

An improvement may require independent assurance where:

the improvement is high significance;
effectiveness is difficult to demonstrate;
regulatory requirements require assurance;
previous remediation failed;
the improvement addresses a critical control; or
management requests independent validation.

The Assurance Schema remains authoritative for the assurance activity.

42. Evidence

Improvement evidence may demonstrate:

the original problem;
root cause;
approval;
implementation;
completion;
verification;
effectiveness;
risk reduction;
control improvement;
stakeholder outcome; and
closure.

Evidence should be independently represented through the Evidence Schema where appropriate.

43. Evidence Completeness

The improvement record may identify whether required evidence is:

complete;
substantially complete;
partially complete; or
incomplete.

Evidence gaps should be explicitly documented. An improvement should not be declared fully effective when material evidence gaps prevent reliable verification.

44. Lessons Learned

Improvements should capture lessons learned where they have broader governance relevance. Lessons may concern:

governance;
technology;
process;
controls;
risk;
monitoring;
assurance;
implementation;
stakeholder engagement; or
organizational capability.

Lessons learned may generate additional improvements.

45. Standardization

An improvement that proves effective may be considered for wider standardization. Standardization decisions may be:

STANDARDIZE
PILOT_FIRST
LOCAL_ONLY
DO_NOT_STANDARDIZE
PENDING

The decision should consider:

applicability;
evidence of effectiveness;
dependencies;
risk;
cost;
organizational context; and
scalability.

Standardization may require changes to:

templates;
procedures;
controls;
guidance;
training; and
schemas.

46. Portfolio Impact

An improvement may affect more than one AI system or governance area. Portfolio impact may include:

other AI systems affected;
enterprise impact;
portfolio action;
common controls;
shared technology;
shared procedures; and
portfolio owner.

Portfolio-wide improvements may produce greater governance value than isolated local changes.

47. Improvement Review

Improvements should be reviewed periodically when:

implementation is prolonged;
dependencies change;
risk changes;
scope changes;
expected benefits change;
target dates are missed; or
effectiveness remains uncertain.

Review should determine whether the improvement should:

continue;
be reprioritized;
be modified;
be deferred;
be cancelled; or
be escalated.

48. Management Review Relationship

Significant improvements should be available to management review. Management may consider:

major improvements;
overdue actions;
improvement trends;
strategic impact;
resource requirements;
risk reduction;
recurring issues; and
improvement effectiveness.

Management review may create new improvement actions or change priorities.

49. Improvement and Risk Management

The improvement-to-risk relationship may be:

Risk / Finding
      ↓
Improvement
      ↓
Treatment
      ↓
Verification
      ↓
Residual Risk

The improvement record should demonstrate whether the intended risk outcome was achieved. The Risk record remains authoritative for the enduring risk state.

50. Improvement and Controls

Improvements may:

introduce new controls;
modify controls;
retire controls;
strengthen control effectiveness;
improve evidence; or
improve monitoring.

Control changes should follow the applicable control and change-management processes.

51. Improvement and Incidents

Incidents are an important improvement source. The relationship may be:

Incident
    ↓
Root Cause
    ↓
Improvement
    ↓
Corrective / Preventive Action
    ↓
Verification

The Incident record remains authoritative for incident investigation and closure. The Improvement record manages the broader change needed to prevent recurrence or improve governance.

52. Improvement and Assurance

Assurance findings may produce improvements. The relationship may be:

Assurance Finding
       ↓
Improvement
       ↓
Corrective Action
       ↓
Verification
       ↓
Assurance Follow-Up

This provides a clear feedback loop between assurance and continual improvement.

53. Improvement and Monitoring

Monitoring may reveal an improvement opportunity through:

deteriorating performance;
repeated threshold breaches;
ineffective indicators;
increasing incidents;
increased risk;
stakeholder dissatisfaction; or
monitoring gaps.

Monitoring evidence should remain traceable to the improvement source.

54. Improvement and Change

An improvement may be implemented through one or more Change records. The relationship may be:

Improvement
    ↓
Change
    ↓
Implementation
    ↓
Verification
    ↓
Effectiveness

A Change record remains authoritative for formal change authorization and execution.

55. Improvement Closure

An improvement should be closed only when the applicable closure criteria are satisfied. Closure may require:

objective achieved;
actions complete;
verification complete;
effectiveness determined;
evidence complete;
outstanding risks addressed;
required approvals complete;
lessons learned captured; and
follow-up assigned where required.

Possible closure states include:

CLOSED
CLOSED_WITH_FOLLOW_UP
DEFERRED
REOPENED
CANCELLED

The exact schema enumeration is authoritative.

56. Reopening an Improvement

An improvement may need to be reopened when:

effectiveness was overstated;
unintended consequences emerge;
the original problem recurs;
implementation fails;
new evidence changes the conclusion; or
the improvement is found to be unsustainable.

Reopening should preserve the original closure history.

57. Improvement Reporting

Improvement records may support governance reporting. Useful metrics include:

Metric	Purpose
Improvements identified	Improvement pipeline
Improvements by source	Source analysis
Improvements by priority	Prioritization
Improvements overdue	Delivery performance
Improvements blocked	Dependency exposure
Improvements completed	Delivery
Improvements effective	Effectiveness
Partially effective improvements	Follow-up
Ineffective improvements	Governance weakness
Repeat improvements	Recurring problems
Standardized improvements	Organizational learning

Metrics should have controlled definitions and reporting periods.

58. Improvement Validation Requirements

A valid Improvement record should satisfy:

Structural Validation

The JSON document must validate against: 12-AIGO-Improvement-Schema-v0.1.json

Source Validation

The improvement source should be identifiable.

Objective Validation

A clear objective should be defined.

Ownership Validation

An accountable owner should be assigned.

Priority Validation

Priority should have an appropriate rationale for significant improvements.

Action Validation

Required actions should have owners and target dates.

Dependency Validation

Material dependencies should be identified.

Risk Validation

Implementation risks should be considered where appropriate.

Verification Validation

The improvement should have a defined verification approach when verification is required.

Effectiveness Validation

Effectiveness should be evaluated against defined criteria.

Evidence Validation

Material effectiveness claims should have sufficient evidence.

Closure Validation

Closure should satisfy the applicable closure criteria.

Traceability Validation

The improvement should remain traceable to its source, related risks, controls, assessments, incidents, changes, assurance, evidence, management reviews, and other related records.

59. Schema Limitations

JSON Schema cannot independently determine:

whether an improvement is genuinely needed;
whether root cause is correct;
whether the selected option is appropriate;
whether implementation is effective;
whether risk reduction actually occurred;
whether stakeholder outcomes improved;
whether standardization is justified; or
whether closure is appropriate.

These matters require governance judgment, evidence, implementation controls, monitoring, and assurance.

60. Relationship to Templates

The Improvement Schema corresponds primarily to: guidance/03-templates/14-AIGO-AI-Continuous-Improvement-Template-v0.1.md It also supports improvement records generated from:

management review;
risk assessment;
control assessment;
monitoring;
incident management;
change management;
assurance;
evidence review;
maturity assessment; and
other AIGO governance activities.

The Markdown template provides the human-readable improvement record. The JSON schema provides the machine-readable structure.

61. Relationship to Procedures

The schema should be used with: guidance/02-procedures/13-AIGO-Continuous-Improvement-Procedure-v0.1.md and, where applicable:

governance;
risk assessment;
control assessment;
approval;
monitoring;
incident management;
change management;
assurance;
management review;
risk acceptance; and
retirement procedures.

The procedure defines how improvements are identified, prioritized, implemented, verified, evaluated, standardized, and closed.

62. Framework Traceability

AIGO Component	Relationship
Governance Domains	Defines areas in which improvements may arise
Governance Roles	Defines improvement ownership and authority
AI Governance Lifecycle	Provides lifecycle improvement context
AI Risk Management	Provides risk-reduction objectives
AI Governance Controls	Provides control-improvement relationships
AI Governance Maturity	Provides maturity gaps and improvement priorities
AI System Profiles	Identifies affected AI systems
Implementation Guidance	Defines improvement implementation expectations
Operational Procedures	Defines continual-improvement workflow
Templates	Provides human-readable improvement records
External Mappings	Provides regulatory and standards context

63. Improvement Traceability Model

The recommended traceability chain is:

Source / Observation / Finding
             ↓
Problem or Opportunity
             ↓
Root Cause
             ↓
Improvement Objective
             ↓
Action Plan
             ↓
Implementation
             ↓
Verification
             ↓
Effectiveness
             ↓
Standardization
             ↓
Closure

The improvement should maintain additional relationships to:

AI System
Risk
Control
Assessment
Approval
Monitoring
Incident
Change
Assurance
Evidence
Management Review
Retirement

This supports end-to-end continual-improvement traceability.

64. Example Record

A conceptual Improvement record may look like:

{
  "id": "IMPROVE-001",
  "objectType": "IMPROVEMENT",
  "objectVersion": "1.0",
  "schemaVersion": "0.1",
  "status": "IN_PROGRESS",
  "improvementTitle": "Strengthen monitoring of high-risk AI systems",
  "improvementType": "MONITORING",
  "owner": {
    "role": "AI Monitoring Owner"
  },
  "source": {
    "sourceType": "MANAGEMENT_REVIEW",
    "description": "Management review identified inconsistent enhanced-monitoring practices."
  },
  "objective": "Establish consistent enhanced-monitoring requirements for high-risk AI systems.",
  "successCriteria": [
    "All in-scope high-risk AI systems have documented enhanced-monitoring criteria.",
    "Thresholds and escalation requirements are defined.",
    "Implementation is verified through evidence."
  ],
  "relatedAiSystemIds": [
    "AI-SYS-001",
    "AI-SYS-002"
  ],
  "relatedControlIds": [
    "CTRL-010"
  ],
  "actionPlan": [
    {
      "actionId": "ACTION-001",
      "action": "Define enhanced-monitoring criteria.",
      "owner": {
        "role": "AI Monitoring Owner"
      },
      "status": "IN_PROGRESS"
    }
  ]
}

The actual record must conform to the authoritative JSON schema.

65. Schema Registry Relationship

This schema is registered in: schemas/00-AIGO-Schema-Registry-v0.1.json The registry should maintain:

schema identifier;
object type;
version;
controlled path;
status;
dependencies;
referenced schemas;
owner;
documentation path; and
traceability metadata.

66. Change and Version Management

Changes to the Improvement Schema should be managed through AIGO change management. Potential impacts should be assessed against:

continual-improvement procedures;
improvement templates;
management review;
risk management;
control management;
monitoring;
incident management;
change management;
assurance;
evidence;
reporting;
standardization;
external mappings; and
validation tooling.

Breaking changes should include migration guidance where necessary.

67. Future Extensions

Future versions may support:

improvement portfolio management;
benefits realization;
formal cost-benefit analysis;
improvement dependency graphs;
automated prioritization;
improvement maturity scoring;
organization-wide standardization;
learning repositories;
automated effectiveness analytics;
benefit monitoring;
policy-to-improvement traceability; and
machine-readable improvement workflows.

Extensions should preserve stable improvement identity, evidence traceability, effectiveness verification, and historical closure records.

68. Document Control

Field	Value
Document	AIGO Improvement Schema Documentation
Version	0.1
Status	Draft
Document Identifier	`AIGO-SCHEMA-DOC-012`
Document Type	Schema Documentation
Schema	`12-AIGO-Improvement-Schema-v0.1.json`
Owner
Technical Reviewer
Governance Reviewer
Approved By
Effective Date
Next Review Date

69. Document Status

Document: AIGO — Improvement Schema Documentation Version: 0.1 Status: Draft Working Name: AIGO Full Name: AI Governance Operating Framework Document Identifier: AIGO-SCHEMA-DOC-012 Document Type: Schema Documentation This document provides the human-readable interpretation, governance context, validation expectations, and traceability guidance for the AIGO Improvement Schema. End of Document

​AIGO — Improvement Schema Documentation

​1. Document Purpose

​2. Schema Information

​3. Scope

​4. Object Model

​5. Core Identity

​6. Improvement Purpose

​7. Improvement Sources

​8. Source Record Relationships

​9. Current Condition

​10. Desired Condition

​11. Problem Statement

​12. Opportunity Statement

​13. Root-Cause Analysis

​14. Contributing Causes

​15. Improvement Type

​16. Improvement Owner

​17. Sponsor and Action Owner

​18. Improvement Lifecycle

​19. Improvement Status

​20. Priority

​21. Urgency

​22. Option Analysis

​23. Selected Option

​24. Improvement Objective

​25. Success Criteria

​26. Action Plan

​27. Resources

​28. Dependencies

​29. Improvement Implementation

​30. Implementation Deviations

​31. Change Management Relationship

​32. Implementation Risk

​33. Verification

​34. Effectiveness Evaluation

​35. Unintended Consequences

​36. Sustainability

​37. Risk Outcome

​38. Control Outcome

​39. Monitoring Outcome

​40. Stakeholder Outcome

​41. Assurance Relationship

​42. Evidence

​43. Evidence Completeness

​44. Lessons Learned

​45. Standardization

​46. Portfolio Impact

​47. Improvement Review

​48. Management Review Relationship

​49. Improvement and Risk Management

​50. Improvement and Controls

​51. Improvement and Incidents

​52. Improvement and Assurance

​53. Improvement and Monitoring

​54. Improvement and Change

​55. Improvement Closure

​56. Reopening an Improvement

​57. Improvement Reporting

​58. Improvement Validation Requirements

​Structural Validation

​Source Validation

​Objective Validation

​Ownership Validation

​Priority Validation

​Action Validation

​Dependency Validation

​Risk Validation

​Verification Validation

​Effectiveness Validation

​Evidence Validation

​Closure Validation

​Traceability Validation

​59. Schema Limitations

​60. Relationship to Templates

​61. Relationship to Procedures

​62. Framework Traceability

​63. Improvement Traceability Model

​64. Example Record

​65. Schema Registry Relationship

​66. Change and Version Management