Decision support

Compare standards by the job they do

Place up to three profiles side by side. Compare their architectural role, lifecycle reach, and first limitation to test. No single standard covers every layer.

Working set

Choose profiles

1 of 3 selected

ARRIVE 2.0Framework

Add a profile

Decision lens

Compare roles before choosing an implementation.

The useful question is not “Which standard wins?” It is “Which job must this part of the architecture perform, and what remains uncovered?”

Start with the job
Decide whether you need guidance, a domain payload, exchange, semantics, governance, or a reusable release.
Map lifecycle reach
Use the matrix to see where each profile has a direct role. A filled cell is coverage, not a quality score.
Test the boundary
Read what each option leaves unresolved before judging maturity or implementation fit.

Assessment

Review lifecycle coverage and practical fit.

Read left to right. Lifecycle reach comes first; a maturity label never overrides a scope mismatch.

01 · Lifecycle reach

Where each profile contributes directly

Coverage shows a recorded role at that readiness stage. It does not imply end-to-end implementation.

Readiness-stage coverage for ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0
Profile	Plan	Acquire	Harmonize	Exchange	Learn + reuse
ARRIVE 2.0Framework	ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 has a direct role in Plan.	ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 has a direct role in Acquire.	ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 has no direct role recorded in Harmonize.	ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 has a direct role in Exchange.	ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 has a direct role in Learn + reuse.

Direct role recordedNo direct role recorded

02 · Boundaries

What each option does not cover

These are design boundaries, not faults. Use them to identify the companion layers your architecture still needs.

ARRIVE 2.0

Stage boundary: No direct role is recorded for Harmonize.
Known limitation: ARRIVE is a human-facing reporting guideline rather than a machine-readable study schema. Checklist completion does not establish ethical approval, statistical validity, or reproducibility.

03 · Detailed assessment

Check the fit and source behind the map

Use the official source, version, and limitation together. A higher maturity label does not erase a scope mismatch.

Detailed comparison of ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0
Assessment	ARRIVE 2.0ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0
Purpose & coverage	The Essential 10 and Recommended Set for study design, sample size, inclusion and exclusion, randomization, blinding, outcome measures, statistics, animal characteristics, procedures, results, and interpretation. Best fitPlanning, recording, reporting, and reviewing in vivo experiments so readers can assess methodological rigor and reproduce the work.
Readiness stages	PlanAcquireExchangeLearn + reuse
AI-ready contribution	Makes bias-sensitive design and reporting decisions visible for downstream reuse, but narrative compliance must be translated into structured variables and verified against source records.
First limitation to test	ARRIVE is a human-facing reporting guideline rather than a machine-readable study schema. Checklist completion does not establish ethical approval, statistical validity, or reproducibility.
Maturity	Established Current international reporting guideline for in vivo animal research; no machine-readable conformance schema
Sources & links	ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 (opens in a new tab)Read full profile