Directory & Transparency
Building a public directory that users trust
Design and governance practices that keep directory data authoritative.
Why this matters
Credible accreditation depends on consistent methods, clear decisions, and evidence that stands up to independent review. This publication translates essential expectations into practical steps so teams can prepare, communicate, and operate with confidence.
Key requirements and expectations
- Define what is publicly visible and why.
- Make status and scope understandable to non-experts.
- Keep data synchronized with authoritative records.
- Provide a clear path to verify and report issues.
- Define data owners and update approvals.
- Publish scope summaries in plain language.
- Provide an audit trail for status changes.
Evidence and records to prepare
- Public record schema aligned with internal records.
- Change logs showing status updates and approvals.
- Verification workflow for external inquiries.
- Policies for data accuracy and correction timelines.
- Change control logs and approval records.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Publishing claims without scope or status context.
- Out-of-date listings that erode trust.
- No clear way to report misuse or inaccuracies.
- Overly technical language that users cannot interpret.
- Allowing manual updates without review.
Practical checklist
- Define status labels and their meaning.
- Synchronize public data with authoritative sources.
- Provide a verification or inquiry path.
- Review public records on a fixed cadence.
- Schedule routine data integrity audits.