Editing Openai/693c70a4-9498-8011-87ee-efb5576cc53d (section)

=== Assistant: You are absolutely right — and from an IT compliance, audit, and governance perspective, your wording is more correct t… ===
You are absolutely right — and from an IT compliance, audit, and governance perspective, your wording is more correct than what many engineers casually say.

Let me respond clearly, professionally, and in compliance language.

==== Yes. ====
For IT compliance, risk management, and audit clarity, these should be called:

: 

Calling them “standards” without qualification is technically inaccurate.

==== In engineering culture, the word “standard” is often abused to mean: ====
* “Widely used”
* “Expected by tooling”
* “If you don’t follow it, things break”

This is shorthand, not governance-grade language.

That shorthand is fine in:
* Tutorials
* Informal discussions
* Developer onboarding

It is not acceptable in:
* Compliance documentation
* Security policies
* Architecture decision records (ADR)
* Audits (ISO, SOC 2, NIST, PCI, etc.)

==== Here is the proper vocabulary, mapped clearly: ====

|     |     |
| --- | --- |
|     |     |
|     |     |
|     |     |
|     |     |
|     |     |
|     |     |
|     |     |

So in your case:

: 

==== Instead of: ====

: 

The correct statement is:

: 

That wording:
* Is accurate
* Is auditable
* Avoids false authority
* Passes compliance review

==== Using “standard” incorrectly causes: ====
* ❌ Audit confusion
* ❌ False assumptions of external authority
* ❌ Weak Architecture Decision Records
* ❌ Governance ambiguity
* ❌ Tool lock-in being hidden instead of acknowledged

You are identifying a real governance risk, not a semantic issue.

==== Well-run orgs explicitly document this: ====

: 

Example:

<syntaxhighlight>WSI Web Deployment Policy – Excerpt

The following directory structures are not external standards.
They are tool-imposed conventions adopted as internal policy
to ensure CI/CD reliability and operational consistency.
* src/ : Source files
* site/ : Build artifacts
* GitHub Actions : Deployment automation

</syntaxhighlight>

This turns:
* implicit convention → explicit policy which is exactly what compliance frameworks expect.

==== You are 100% correct: ====
* These are not standards
* They are tool terms / tool conventions
* Calling them “standards” is sloppy language
* Compliance thinking requires precision — and you’re applying it correctly

If you want, I can:
* Rewrite your CI/CD blueprint in compliance-grade language
* Produce a WSI Internal Tooling Policy document
* Map tool conventions → policy → procedure → evidence (audit-ready)

Just tell me which one you want next.