standards-alignment

name

standards-alignment

description

Use this skill when the user mentions a named industry standard (BIAN, ISO 20022, FHIR, ACORD, TM Forum, etc.), when modelling a recognised industry domain (banking, payments, insurance, healthcare, telecoms, retail), or when populating the Reference column of any MD-DDL summary table. Also use when the user asks whether a concept already exists in a standard, or when two modelled concepts might map to the same standard object.

Skill: Standards Alignment

Covers how to find, evaluate, and reference external industry standards within MD-DDL models. No additional spec section is required — standards are referenced in the Reference column of domain summary tables and in entity YAML.

---

Standards by Domain

Industry	Primary Standards	Use for
Banking / Financial Services	BIAN BOM, FIBO	Entity and relationship semantics
Payments	ISO 20022, SWIFT MX, PCI DSS	Message schemas, party roles, transaction types
Risk & Compliance	Basel III / BCBS, FATF	Risk entities, regulatory metadata
Local Compliance	APRA (AU), FCA (UK), OCC (US)	Retention, classification, regulatory_scope
Cross-jurisdiction Privacy	GDPR, CCPA, PDPA	PII metadata, retention, consent events
Insurance	ACORD, IAIS	Policy, claim, underwriting entities
Healthcare	HL7 FHIR, SNOMED CT, ICD-10	Clinical entities, terminology
Telecoms	TM Forum SID, eTOM	Party, product, service entities
Retail / Supply Chain	GS1, eCl@ss	Product, location, shipment entities
Cross-industry	ISO 8601 (dates), ISO 4217 (currency), ISO 3166 (country)	Attribute types and enum values

---

How to Apply a Standard Reference

Step 1 — Confirm the mapping exists

Do not silently map a concept to a standard if the fit is approximate. Check that the standard actually defines a counterpart to the entity or attribute being modelled.

For BIAN BOM, use the dedicated guidance in BIAN standard guidance. It defines the deterministic lookup sequence, local reference files for name matching and attribute inspection, candidate disambiguation rules, version parameters, and no-guess policy. Default to BIAN v13 until v14 snapshots are available — see the version selection rules in BIAN standard guidance.

For TM Forum SID, use the dedicated guidance in TM Forum standard guidance. It defines the deterministic lookup sequence, local reference files for entity name matching and property inspection, SID domain taxonomy, the Party/PartyRole pattern, and the Customer vs Subscriber distinction critical for telecoms modelling.

For ACORD, use the curated guidance in ACORD standard guidance. It covers core insurance entities (Policy, Coverage, Claim), party role patterns (PolicyHolder, Insured, Claimant, Beneficiary), ACORD naming conventions, and code lists. Note that ACORD schemas are membership-gated — mappings should note confidence level explicitly.

For ISO 20022, consult the message definition catalogue for the relevant message type.

For HL7 FHIR, use the dedicated guidance in FHIR standard guidance. It defines a deterministic lookup sequence using local cache files for resource and terminology mapping before falling back to live FHIR pages.

Step 2 — Note material differences

If the standard's definition differs from the user's intent, say so explicitly:

"In BIAN BOM, 'Party' is defined as [standard definition]. Your usage adds [X]. This is close enough to reference BIAN, but we should note the extension in the entity description."

Step 3 — Format the reference link

Use the Reference column in summary tables and in entity descriptions:

| `Customer` (`entities/customer.md#customer`) | `Party Role` (`entities/party_role.md#party-role`) | A Party with an active product relationship. | `BIAN BOM - Party Role` (`https://bian-modelapi-v4.azurewebsites.net/BOClassByName/PartyRole`) |

For multiple applicable standards, list the most specific first.

Step 4 — Carry references into metadata

When a regulatory standard applies to the domain, add it to regulatory_scope in the domain YAML — not just to the Reference column:

regulatory_scope:
  - GDPR
  - BCBS 239
  - APRA CPS 234

---

Approximate vs. Exact Mapping

Signal	Action
Concept name and definition match the standard closely	Reference directly; no note needed
Concept is a specialisation of a standard object	Reference the parent; note the specialisation in the entity description
Concept partially overlaps a standard object	Reference with a qualification: "Partial alignment — [difference]"
No standard counterpart exists	Do not force a reference; leave the Reference column empty

Never fabricate a reference URL to make the model look more aligned than it is. A missing reference is honest; a wrong one is harmful.

For BIAN specifics (including local reference files, lookup order and exact-name resolution), follow BIAN standard guidance. For TM Forum SID specifics (including SID domain taxonomy and Party/Customer/Subscriber patterns), follow TM Forum standard guidance. For ACORD specifics (including insurance entity hierarchies and party role patterns), follow ACORD standard guidance. For FHIR specifics (including resource and terminology cache files and healthcare mapping patterns), follow FHIR standard guidance.

---

Standard Reconciliation Protocol

Use this protocol when the user's model decomposition and the standard's decomposition genuinely differ — not just in naming, but in how concepts are split, merged, or specialised. This is common when an organisation has evolved its own terminology or when the standard is more abstract than the user's model.

When to Trigger

Trigger reconciliation when any of these occur:

• User's single concept maps to multiple standard objects (split)
• Multiple user concepts map to a single standard object (merge)
• User concept and standard object overlap partially with distinct extensions
• User asks "how does our model relate to [standard]?" in structural terms

Step 1 — Build the Comparison Table

Present a structured side-by-side to the user:

Your Model | Standard | Overlap | Gap | Options
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Customer | BIAN Party Role | Both represent a business relationship to the organisation | Your Customer includes identity (name, DOB); BIAN separates identity into Party | (a) Split into Party + Customer Role (b) Keep Customer, reference BIAN Party Role with note
Account Holder | BIAN Party Role | Both represent a party acting in a capacity | Your Account Holder is a specialisation of Customer; BIAN treats both as Party Role subtypes | (a) Model as separate entity specialising Party Role (b) Treat as Customer attribute

Step 2 — Evaluate Each Option

For each row, apply these decision criteria:

Criterion	What to check
Ownership	Does each concept have a distinct owning team?
Lifecycle	Does each concept have an independent lifecycle?
Attributes	Does each concept carry meaningfully different attributes?
Governance	Do different regulatory requirements apply?
Standard alignment value	Does aligning more closely improve interoperability or auditability?
Cost of divergence	What breaks if we don't align? (reporting, integration, audit trails)

Step 3 — Propose a Resolution

For each row, recommend one of:

Resolution	When appropriate
Adopt standard decomposition	Standard's split adds genuine value; aligning improves interoperability
Keep user decomposition, reference standard	User's split reflects real operational boundaries; reference with qualification note
Hybrid	Adopt standard's abstract parent, keep user's specialisations as subtypes
No alignment	Concepts are superficially similar but semantically different; forced alignment would mislead

Step 4 — Document the Decision

For each resolved concept, produce an annotation in the entity description that records the reconciliation:

### Customer
The party with an active product or service relationship.

**Standards reconciliation:**
- BIAN equivalent: Party Role (partial alignment — BIAN separates identity
  into Party; our Customer carries identity attributes directly)
- Decision: Kept as single entity; reference BIAN Party Role with qualification
- Rationale: Customer team owns both identity and relationship data; splitting
  would fragment operational ownership

This makes the alignment decision auditable and prevents future contributors from re-asking the same question.

---

Worked Example: BIAN Alignment for Financial Crime

This example demonstrates the standards alignment process applied to core entities from the examples/Financial Crime/ domain, mapping against the BIAN Business Object Model (v13 — current production baseline; v14 pending snapshot availability).

Step 1 — Identify candidate mappings

MD-DDL Entity	BIAN BOM Candidate	Confidence
Party	Party	High — both represent an individual or organisation
Person	IndividualEntity	High — BIAN separates natural persons from legal entities
Company	Organisation	High — BIAN equivalent of legal entity
Party Role	PartyRole	High — BIAN uses the same abstraction
Customer	CustomerRole	High — BIAN models Customer as a PartyRole subtype
Account	Account	High — direct match on definition and semantics
Transaction	AccountEntry	Medium — BIAN uses AccountEntry for ledger movements; financial transaction is broader

Step 2 — Evaluate differences

MD-DDL Entity	BIAN Difference	Impact
Party	BIAN's Party is abstract with IndividualEntity and Organisation subtypes. MD-DDL models Person and Company as subtypes of Party.	Structural match — inheritance hierarchy is aligned
Party Role	BIAN's PartyRole is abstract. MD-DDL matches this pattern.	No difference
Customer	BIAN's CustomerRole inherits from PartyRole. MD-DDL's Customer inherits from Party Role.	Aligned
Transaction	BIAN's AccountEntry is narrowly scoped to account postings. MD-DDL's Transaction covers the full payment event including payer, payee, and payment initiator roles.	Material difference — Transaction is broader than AccountEntry

Step 3 — Resolution

Entity	Resolution	Rationale
Party, Person, Company	Adopt standard decomposition	MD-DDL's inheritance hierarchy already matches BIAN's Party → IndividualEntity / Organisation pattern
Party Role, Customer	Adopt standard decomposition	Both model the role abstraction identically
Transaction	Keep MD-DDL decomposition, reference BIAN with qualification	Transaction includes payment orchestration (Payer, Payee, Payment Initiator) beyond BIAN's AccountEntry scope

Step 4 — Resulting Reference column entries

Entity | Reference
--- | ---
Party | BIAN BOM - Party
Person | BIAN BOM - IndividualEntity
Company | BIAN BOM - Organisation
Party Role | BIAN BOM - PartyRole
Customer | BIAN BOM - CustomerRole
Transaction | BIAN BOM - AccountEntry (partial — Transaction extends beyond ledger movements to include payment roles and initiator context)

Key takeaway

Not every entity maps 1:1 to a standard. Transaction → AccountEntry is a legitimate partial alignment. The reconciliation note ensures future contributors understand why the mapping is qualified rather than exact.

---

Regulatory Metadata Prompt

When a domain's regulatory_scope is being populated, prompt the user with this checklist. Many teams underspecify this because they assume "someone else handles compliance."

• Does this domain hold personal data about individuals? → GDPR / CCPA / PDPA
• Does this domain support financial reporting? → SOX / BCBS 239
• Does this domain hold transaction or payment data? → PCI DSS / AML / FATF
• Does this domain support credit risk assessment? → Basel III
• Does this domain hold health information? → HIPAA / HL7
• Is the institution regulated in Australia? → APRA CPS 234 / CPG 235
• Is the institution regulated in the EU? → DORA / EU 5AMLD / 6AMLD
• Is the institution regulated in the UK? → FCA COBS / SYSC

For each applicable framework, confirm with the user whether it affects:

• The classification or pii flags
• The default_retention value
• Any specific attribute-level governance (e.g., credit scores under ECOA)