The framework's path from proposed standard to formal standard.
This document describes the current status of the SFR framework and the stages through which it advances toward a formal standard. Each stage is described neutrally, with the conditions that characterize it and the requirements for advancement. The roadmap does not assign timelines. Progress through each stage depends on community engagement, independent evaluation, and the resolution of gaps identified in the normative corpus.
The SFR framework is at version 0.9 Draft, designated Proposed Standard. The normative corpus is substantially complete: the framework defines classification criteria, canonical definitions, evaluation methodology, and governance structure. The gaps that prevent advancement to v1.0 are identified and documented in the Governance Framework.
The Proposed Standard designation means the framework is available for reference, citation, research application, and procurement use. It is not yet ratified. No named governance authority currently holds custodianship. Organizations that reference SFR today are engaging with a framework in its community review and development phase.
SFR v0.9 Draft — Proposed Standard — June 2026. Available for practical reference and application. Not yet formally ratified.
The framework is substantially complete. Normative documents define classification criteria, evaluation methodology, canonical definitions, and governance structure. Informative documents cover adoption pathways, procurement guidance, research reference, and citation guidelines. The framework is available for practical use and community feedback.
The framework is reviewed by organizations representing the types identified in the implementation pathways document: manufacturers, universities, motorsport organizations, aviation training programs, rehabilitation programs, military organizations, and researchers. Feedback is collected, analyzed, and applied to the normative corpus. Substantive feedback may trigger minor or major revisions under the revision policy.
The evaluation methodology (Reference Test Methodology, Evaluation Inputs, Evaluation Process) is tested against real simulation systems by evaluators who are independent of the framework's authors. The repeatability requirement is tested: do independent evaluators, applying the same methodology to the same system with the same evidence, reach the same classification outcome? Systematic discrepancies identify areas where the methodology requires refinement.
Organizations from at least two of the implementation pathway types formally adopt the SFR framework in procurement, research, or training standards. Pilot adoption produces practical feedback about what the framework enables, where it creates friction, and what gaps remain before broader adoption is feasible. Pilot adopters are credited as contributing organizations in framework documentation.
All normative gaps identified in the v0.9 governance framework audit are resolved. The evaluation methodology has demonstrated repeatability across independent evaluators. A named governance authority has been designated. The framework advances to v1.0 and is designated Candidate Standard, which means it is suitable for formal adoption by organizations and is under consideration for ratification by a governance body.
The framework has been reviewed, pilot-tested, and ratified by the designated governance authority following the processes defined in the Governance Framework revision policy. A formal adoption process exists for organizations. The framework is cited as a ratified standard rather than a proposed standard in procurement documents, research, and policy. Subsequent versions are maintained under the ratified governance structure.
The following gaps must be resolved before the framework can advance to Candidate Standard (Stage 4). These are identified in the Governance Framework as the v1.0 requirements.
The roadmap is not a promise of when the framework will be ratified. It is a description of what advancement requires. Any organization or individual can contribute to advancement by participating in community review, conducting independent evaluations, piloting the framework in procurement or research, or nominating themselves or their organization as a governance authority candidate.
Advancement through the stages is conditional on meeting the requirements of each stage, not on the passage of time. A framework that is used, tested, refined, and adopted advances. One that is not used stays at its current stage indefinitely.