Trust Isn’t Just a Feeling — But It’s Not Just a Score Either.
Trust is often talked about as if it’s subjective — and it is, in part. But when it comes to digital systems, trust also has structure. It emerges from how things are built, connected, verified, and handled.
The Trust Diagnostic Framework is a lightweight tool to help teams assess that structure — not to define trust fully, but to make its posture visible and usable.
This model doesn’t try to capture every nuance — trust still involves perception, values, and broader social systems.
But what it does offer is a shared way to ask:
Is this digital artefact credible?
Was it handled with care?
Is the trust we place in it proportionate to the risk if it fails?
It’s already been used in digital identity, AI model assurance, and credentialing design — helping surface alignment gaps before they escalate.
Most systems don’t break because no one thought about trust.
They break because no one made trust posture visible until it was too late.
Where in your organisation might this kind of lens reduce rework, or spark better cross-functional conversations?
Here is a simple diagnostic canvas — two quadrants, two lenses:
Digital Trust Posture (credibility + care)
Trust Posture vs Risk Fit
It’s not a silver bullet. But it might give your team a shared breath.
If you'd like to try it in your context, happy to share more or walk through a live use case.
For more see: Using the Trust Diagnostic Framework - this article introduces a practical tool for making trust visible in digital systems.
It helps cross-functional teams assess the credibility and care behind digital decisions — and align them with real-world risk.
Not a framework to enforce, but a shared lens to support earlier alignment, clearer governance, and more confident delivery.