Gap analysis across jurisdictions
Each jurisdiction has its own canonical future-ready profile. The gap is always computed against the canonical in the organisation's own jurisdiction — not against a global canonical.
The canonical-per-jurisdiction rule
RPF does not maintain a single global canonical future-ready profile per discipline. Each supported jurisdiction publishes its own canonical, sponsored by a body active in that market. The gap analysis surface always picks the canonical in the org's jurisdiction. If the org's jurisdiction has no canonical, the gap shows an empty state with a sponsorship CTA and a workshop CTA — not a fallback to a global canonical.
Why per-jurisdiction?
Future-ready competence is shaped by local standards, local procurement language, local regulatory drivers, and local sponsoring bodies. A canonical that averages across all jurisdictions would lose the citation-grounded credibility that is RPF's defensibility.
Brazil (BR)
Canonical materials referencing ISO 19650 are substituted with ABNT NBR ISO 19650. Action statements have validated Portuguese (pt-BR) variants. The BFB collaboration is the sponsoring activity for the Brazilian canonical.
Ireland (IE)
Canonical materials referencing ISO 19650 are substituted with IS EN ISO 19650. The Irish canonical is queued behind a sponsoring body; today the gap surface offers the sponsorship CTA on profiles tagged for IE.
Canada (CA)
Canadian materials may substitute CSA Z250 for ISO 19650 in some contexts. Both English (en) and French (fr) variants are required for any canonical published under a Canadian sponsoring body. The Canadian canonical is queued behind a sponsoring body.
Other jurisdictions
Jurisdictions without a canonical see the sponsorship CTA on every gap empty state. Sponsorship is the path: a body funds the canonical's development, attribution is permanent on the published profile, and the first org-fork seeds the gap surface for that jurisdiction.
