Decision of the rating committee on 14 October 2026

Decision taken by the chair, @kwizzn, who is currently the committee's only member (docs/governance.md, status note). The four-eyes rule cannot be met with one member; it applies as a commitment until a second member joins.

Attendance

@kwizzn (chair). Conflicts of interest declared on the matters below: TODO(to be provided by the client).

Decisions

1. The committee approves method version 1.1.0 (method/versions/1.1.0.yaml), including the default weights of the exchanges and on-ramps catalogues that 1.1.0 left for confirmation. Counsel's review (LEGAL_REVIEW(method-v1), LEGAL_REVIEW(method-v1.1)) remains open.
2. Version 1.1.0 is superseded by 1.2.0 before the first release and is therefore never tagged (a method-v tag must name the highest version in method/versions/).
3. The draft of version 1.2.0 (scoring anchors and a computed criterion score for hardware-wallets, method/CHANGELOG.md) is submitted to the committee.
4. After the calibration pilot on five hardware wallets (platform repository, business/strategy/2026-10-14_WhatTheChain-Hardware-Calibration-Pilot_EN.md), the committee approves method version 1.2.0 with the anchors as revised in the pilot. Counsel's review (LEGAL_REVIEW(method-v1.2)) remains open.
5. The committee notes, without deciding them now, three observations of the pilot report (§4.3): the low absolute level of the security scores; that ranked_with_gap ranks a product with a small share of its weight rated; and that a criterion can rest on one sub-criterion at its minimum rated weight. They are to be decided before the first ratings release.
6. On the pilot observations of decision 5, the committee decides: - Security level (observation 1): the absolute scale stays. The rating pages explain it with the frontier ("score / best in the release") and a sentence on the evidence behind the level. The committee looks at the distribution again once all 25 Tier-1 hardware wallets are assessed. - Ranking with gaps (observation 2): a product is ranked only when its rated criteria carry at least 80 of 100 weight under the weighting in use; below that it is listed as not fully rated. This needs a new method version (1.3.0) and a change of the scoring core. - A criterion on one sub-criterion (observation 3): the rule stays. Such a criterion keeps its confidence below high, the rating pages mark it as partly rated, and the research closes the missing sub-criterion.
7. The release signing key was generated on 2026-10-14 by the chair (key id 356272D8EAB9D7BC). The key ceremony of docs/releasing.md asks for two committee members; with one member the chair did it alone, and the second member confirms the key when they join. The public key is added as keys/minisign.pub, valid from 2026-10-14; the secret key and its passphrase are held offline and in the release environment of this repository.