VRCRI
Explore the system

Regenerative Systems Atlas

Explore the connected wastewater-to-regeneration system.

Eighteen research domains, each with three subtopics, linked by explained relationships. The domains are an editorial taxonomy, not performance ratings of any utility. Relationships are original synthesis. Related sources are shown for context and do not prove a relationship.

Directory of domains

The same 18 domains as a list. Works without hover or the graph.

Domain R / Cross-cutting

Governance and evidence

Regulation, standards and evidence rules define what may be claimed and done.

Subtopics

  • Approvals and duties. Identify site- and product-specific regulatory requirements.
  • Evidence, provenance and audit. Connect every major assertion to its actual source or hypothesis status.
  • Long-term accountability and correction. Define responsibility after delivery and preserve corrections.

Where a decision here travels

Domains reached by following the selected relationship types, by number of steps. Structural reach only; it does not show material flow or size of effect.

Downstream

  1. 1 step: ;
  2. 2 steps: ;

Upstream

  1. 1 step: ; ;
  2. 2 steps: ; ; ;
  3. 3 steps: ; ;
  4. 4 steps: ;

Feedback loops through this domain (1)

Relationships (5)

  • Evidence required

    Fate, mass balance and verification to Evidence, provenance and audit: Destruction claims require documented mass-balance and test records.

    Question raised: What would have to be shown in H Contaminant fate before a claim in R Governance and evidence can be made?

    Why connected? (R18)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    What counts as sufficient evidence is set by the relevant regulator, scheme or study design. None is specified here.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Evidence required: Fate, mass balance and verification (domain H) to Evidence, provenance and audit (domain R).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    A fate claim is only as strong as the records behind it. Audit needs traceable data, methods and mass balances.
    3. Why it matters
    It determines whether a removal or destruction claim can be defended.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: The measurement programme. Downstream: The audit trail.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Audit expectations depend on the claim being made.
    7. What would settle it
    A recorded method and dataset that a third party can check.
  • Feedback

    Soil and water monitoring to Long-term accountability and correction: Monitoring results drive corrective action and stewardship.

    Question raised: How should results in M Long-term outcomes revise earlier decisions in R Governance and evidence?

    Why connected? (R27)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    Whether the feedback occurs in practice, and how quickly, is not established.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Feedback: Soil and water monitoring (domain M) to Long-term accountability and correction (domain R).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Monitoring results can trigger corrective action and stewardship decisions when they show a departure from expectations.
    3. Why it matters
    Monitoring has value only if it can change what happens next.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Monitoring design and thresholds. Downstream: Corrective action and stewardship.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    The feedback is meaningful only where trigger levels and responsibilities are defined in advance.
    7. What would settle it
    Defined triggers, with the monitoring records and actions taken.
  • Evidence required

    Credits and lifecycle integrity to Evidence, provenance and audit: Credit claims require scheme-specific evidence and controls.

    Question raised: What would have to be shown in O Climate accounting before a claim in R Governance and evidence can be made?

    Why connected? (R31)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    What counts as sufficient evidence is set by the relevant regulator, scheme or study design. None is specified here.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.
    Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Evidence required: Credits and lifecycle integrity (domain O) to Evidence, provenance and audit (domain R).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Credit claims depend on scheme-specific evidence and controls, so credible claims need auditable records.
    3. Why it matters
    A credit claim without evidence is not defensible.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Scheme choice and monitoring. Downstream: Audit and verification.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 5 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Requirements differ by scheme and change over time.
    7. What would settle it
    The current scheme method compared with the evidence actually held.
  • Constraint

    Approvals and duties to Product specifications and buyers: Regulatory compliance is a gate on product marketability.

    Question raised: Which limits in R Governance and evidence narrow what P Markets and offtake can do?

    Why connected? (R35)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    Which limits apply and what their values are depends on jurisdiction and site. No limit values are asserted.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Constraint: Approvals and duties (domain R) to Product specifications and buyers (domain P).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Regulatory approvals and duties can act as a gate on whether a product can be marketed and bought.
    3. Why it matters
    Compliance affects marketability.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Approval requirements. Downstream: Specifications and buyer acceptance.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 3 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Requirements vary with product, use and jurisdiction.
    7. What would settle it
    The applicable approvals identified and their status recorded.
  • Feedback

    Evidence, provenance and audit to Adaptive management and stewardship: Auditable observations shape continuing stewardship decisions.

    Question raised: How should results in R Governance and evidence revise earlier decisions in M Long-term outcomes?

    Why connected? (R36)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    Whether the feedback occurs in practice, and how quickly, is not established.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Feedback: Evidence, provenance and audit (domain R) to Adaptive management and stewardship (domain M).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Auditable observations provide the record on which continuing stewardship decisions can be based.
    3. Why it matters
    Decisions made on unrecorded observations cannot be reviewed.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Record-keeping and audit. Downstream: Stewardship decisions.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 3 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Audit does not make observations correct; it makes them checkable.
    7. What would settle it
    A record that shows what was observed, by whom, and what was decided.

Claim status: Interpretation. This is original synthesis, not measured data or a performance rating.