A transparent account of where SFR stands and the path forward
This page documents what has been completed, what comes next, and what each stage of the validation path requires. It is not a timeline or a commitment, it is a transparent record of the framework's current status and the work that remains to be done.
SFR v0.9 is a fully documented proposed standard. The structural criteria, classification taxonomy, evaluation methodology, reference examples, and governance framework are all defined. This is the development phase, and that phase is substantially complete.
What has not been done: SFR has not been validated through controlled research, independent peer review as a standard, or formal inter-evaluator reliability testing on real systems. The criteria are grounded in established science from several disciplines, but SFR itself, as a classification standard, has not yet been tested against real systems or real outcomes.
This roadmap documents the path from the current state to a formally validated standard. Progress on this path requires participation from the research and simulation communities.
SFR v0.9 is the current version of the framework. It is a proposed standard, meaning it is fully developed and available for use, but it has not completed a formal validation or independent review process. The "0.9" designation reflects that the framework is mature enough for substantive use and community review, but has not yet reached the stage of formal adoption.
The current version includes: complete structural criteria for three classification tiers, a documented evaluation methodology with five required inputs and four optional inputs, a standardized evidence tier system, reference evaluation examples for two hypothetical systems, a governance framework defining document classifications and revision policy, and community review infrastructure. What it does not include: results from real-system evaluations, inter-evaluator reliability data, or outcome research on training transfer.
The validation path for SFR follows five stages. Each stage has defined completion criteria. Progress through the stages is not linear in all cases, some stages may proceed in parallel, but earlier stages provide the foundation for later ones. The current status is shown for each stage.
The complete framework is documented and available for community review. This stage is the development phase: defining criteria, methodology, governance, and reference materials. It does not require external research participation, it is completed by the framework development team with community input.
Independent evaluators apply the SFR methodology to real simulation systems. This is the first stage that requires external participation. The purpose is to identify whether the criteria can be reliably assessed from real-world evidence, where documentation gaps are most common, and whether the evaluation process is practical for evaluators working with real systems.
Multiple independent evaluators, working separately, assess the same set of real simulation systems. Their classification results and criterion findings are compared. This measures whether the criteria are clear enough to produce consistent results across evaluators. Criteria with systematic disagreement are revised before the framework advances.
Research specifically designed to test whether the SFR classification tiers predict meaningful differences in training outcomes, neurological adaptation, or human performance metrics. This is the most demanding stage: it requires controlled research with human participants, comparison across classification levels, and longitudinal outcome data.
This stage is distinct from the disciplines that influenced SFR. Existing research in vehicle dynamics and vestibular neuroscience informed the criteria. This stage would test whether those criteria, applied as a classification standard, predict the differences they are theorized to predict.
Submission to an independent standards body or formal peer review process. This stage requires that Stages 2 through 4 have produced sufficient evidence to support a claim that the standard is reliable and valid. The review is conducted by parties with no prior involvement in SFR development. Formal adoption would move SFR from a proposed standard to a recognized one.
Stage 2 (Pilot Evaluations) is the immediate next step. The following are the gaps that need to be addressed before it can proceed.
Stage 2 requires simulation operators willing to submit their systems for evaluation and provide architecture documentation, telemetry data, and actuator specifications in a format sufficient for independent assessment. No such arrangements are in place currently.
Stage 2 requires evaluators who have studied the methodology and can apply it consistently. There is no formal evaluator training program at this stage. The evaluation methodology is documented, but training and calibration resources are not yet developed.
A structured pilot program requires protocols for selecting participating systems, onboarding evaluators, handling confidential architecture documentation, and reporting results in a way that protects operator confidentiality while building a useful evidence corpus. This infrastructure does not yet exist.
Stage 4 criterion validity research requires research institution partners with access to simulation systems across multiple classification tiers and the capability to conduct controlled training studies with human participants. No partnerships are currently in place.
The validation path requires participation from outside the framework development team. Organizations that want to understand how they might contribute to future research or pilot evaluation efforts can find information on the Research Participation page.
There are no active programs, commitments, or guarantees at this stage. The participation page is informational, it describes what future participation might look like, not what is currently available.