Pehta Framework v1.02 remains available as the Foundation prepares its successor. The v1.5 (Canada Model) Exposure Draft is scheduled to open for consultation on 1 December 2026. Version 1.02 is nearing replacement; the December release begins consultation and does not, by itself, establish a final standard or retirement date.
Document designation: Exposure Draft · ED1-2024-1.02. Greyed-out v1.5 materials are previews and are not yet available for download or comment.
Consultation on the v1.5 Exposure Draft is not yet open. The planned comment period is 1 December 2026 to 30 May 2027. The consultation material below is a preview for the December opening.
Where the Implementation and Guidance Manual or the Supply-Chain Participant Guide and the Normative Disclosure Standard differ, the Standard governs. Comments should cite clause identifiers in the Standard. The full due-process discipline — dispositions, rights-holder primacy, amendment rules — is set out on the Governance & Due Process page.
Reference clause identifiers (e.g., PT7.0.6, Clause 7.9.4) or the numbered Questions for Respondents. Comments on the Manual should reference IGM section numbers.
Agreement and disagreement are both useful; proposed alternative wording is more useful than either.
Nation, reporting entity, assurance provider, capital provider, or other — the Foundation weighs rights-holder submissions with primacy, and reads all of them. Confidential submissions are accepted on request.
Send comments to info@pehta.org with the subject line "ED Comment — Pehta Framework v1.5".
The revised Standard contains thirty-five Questions for Respondents. Highlights below cover the removal of Nation validation states, Registry lodging and isolation, equal access for operators, funding, and future structured reporting.
Is the leadership-only testimonial scope right, and is the standardized survey instrument appropriately specified?
Are the Reporting-Year minimums and transitional reliefs realistic for adopters?
Should standing access channels remain permanently valid alongside the Pehta Disclosure Registry, or become transitional once the Registry is operational? What would consolidation cost, and how do Nations weigh one point of access against choice of mechanism?
Does the consolidated Reporting Inventory correctly identify the mandatory core that is material to Nations and capital-market users?
Is the equity Topic (PT10) — the always-mandatory posture disclosure, the ownership bands, the counting rule — calibrated correctly?
Is disclosure-of-methodology the right posture for procurement, and is the ownership-percentage-weighting prohibition appropriately absolute?
Is the new Entry Statement — complete Topic coverage, Declared Coverage, no conformance claim — the right on-ramp between alignment and conformance?
Is Declared Coverage — computed per Topic and presented beside each metric it qualifies — correctly designed?
Are the proposed Smaller Reporting Entity thresholds and reliefs proportionate?
Is removing recordable Nation validation states the right protection against pressure and marketing misuse? Are delivery timing, the correction duty, Registry lodging, named scoping attestations, and rights-holder isolation proportionate? Are the common submission route, provenance record, and independent-audit requirements sufficient to prevent operator favouritism?
Are the AI safeguards complete: tools may assist but cannot substitute for evidence; Community-linked data remains subject to Nation governance and consent; synthetic identity, testimonial, or consent content is not evidence? Clauses 4.6.3–4.6.5
Should a structured public record be introduced in a later edition, and what should trigger it? How should it respect portability, withheld-display, and AI safeguards? Could structured lodging also enable the Registry to enforce Community-data isolation instead of relying on attestation and assurance? This edition requires no machine-readable public dataset.
Should the Foundation be funded by filing fees paid by reporting entities when they file an issued Statement — on a published, outcome-blind tariff scaled to entity size, with no fee ever charged to a Nation — rather than by government or corporate donations?
Should bulk and programmatic services over the aggregated public Pehta Record fund the Foundation? Individual Statements remain permanently free, Nations have free access at every tier, and licensees must carry Statement Status and Declared Coverage. Private Nation versions, relationship details, and identity data are never licensed.
Anything else — identified by clause, if possible — including the opportunity-and-benefit principle.
Every substantive comment gets a documented disposition.
After the period closes, redeliberation proceeds question by question, with rights-holder submissions given primacy. The final edition will publish alongside a comment-disposition summary and the release change log reconciling every wording change to its stable clause identifier — so respondents can see exactly what their input changed.
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISCLOSURE