# Canada GC Digital Standards Conformance Playbook > **Guide Origin**: Community | **ArcKit Version**: [VERSION] `/arckit:ca-gc-digital-standards` generates a Government of Canada Digital Standards conformance scorecard for a federal digital service. It assesses the service against the 10 Digital Standards individually, surfaces evidence and gaps per standard, captures remediation actions with owners and target dates, and produces a per-standard maturity roadmap. Cross-cutting themes — accessibility, open data and code, ethical AI, user research practice — are scored once across the standards they touch. The Digital Standards are not aspirational principles. They sit under the TBS *Policy on Service and Digital* and the *Directive on Service and Digital*; ADMs are accountable for adherence and TBS audits conformance through the digital reporting cycle. Standard 6 is reinforced by the *Accessible Canada Act* and the *Accessible Canada Regulations*, which set the statutory floor regardless of how the digital scorecard reads. Treat this artefact as a delivery and governance gate — not a self-assessment exercise. --- ## Inputs | Artefact | Purpose | |----------|---------| | Requirements (`ARC--REQ-v1.0.md`) | Service description, user populations, intended outcomes | | Service assessment (`ARC--SVCASS-v*.md`) | GDS-style evidence base — many points map onto Digital Standards | | Retrospective notes | Iteration cadence, learning loops, team practices | | Accessibility audits | WCAG 2.1 AA / 2.2 AA conformance, manual and assistive-tech reviews | | PIA / AIA artefacts | Standard 5 (security and privacy) and Standard 9 (ethical) evidence | --- ## Command ```bash /arckit:ca-gc-digital-standards ``` Output: `projects//ARC--DIGSTD-v1.0.md` --- ## Assessment Structure | Section | Contents | |---------|----------| | Document Control | Canadian classification (UNCLASSIFIED / Protected A–C / CONFIDENTIAL / SECRET / TOP SECRET) | | Revision History | Version, date, author, changes, approvals | | Executive Summary | Conformance posture across the 10 standards, top remediation actions, maturity headline | | Service Description | Service, owner, user populations, lifecycle stage, key artefacts | | Per-Standard Assessment | One sub-table per standard with Evidence, Gaps, Remediation, Owner, Target date, Maturity | | Cross-Cutting Themes | Accessibility, open data and code, ethical AI, user research — scored across the standards they touch | | Maturity Roadmap | Current vs target maturity per standard, milestones, owners, dates | | Open Items | Outstanding decisions, blocked remediations, deferred standards work | | External References | Document Register, Citations, Unreferenced | --- ## Maturity scale The scorecard uses a CMMI-style 5-level progression for each standard: | Level | Meaning | |-------|---------| | Initial | Practice is ad hoc, undocumented, or absent. Conformance is incidental rather than designed. | | Repeatable | Practice happens consistently on this service, but is informal and dependent on the current team. | | Defined | Practice is documented, standardised across the team, and onboarded into team rituals. | | Measured | Outcomes are instrumented; the team has metrics that prove conformance, not just activity. | | Optimising | The team uses the metrics to iterate the practice itself. Conformance improves over time without prompting. | Score each standard independently. Do not collapse the 10 dimensions into a single overall maturity number — that loses the per-standard signal TBS reviewers need. --- ## When to run - Pre-launch — before go-live for a new federal digital service to evidence conformance to all 10 standards. - ATO renewal — pair with `ca-itsg-33` and `ca-pia` so the security, privacy, and digital scorecards refresh together. - Quarterly governance review — TBS reporting cycles surface conformance gaps, so refresh the scorecard ahead of each cycle. - Substantive service change — new audience, new channel, new automated decision, new processor, or change of jurisdiction. --- ## Common pitfalls - **Treating the standards as advisory.** The Digital Standards are policy under the *Policy on Service and Digital*; non-conformance has audit consequences. Do not write the scorecard as a discretionary self-rating. - **Missing the WCAG / Accessible Canada Act floor.** Standard 6 is anchored in statute. WCAG 2.1 AA / 2.2 AA conformance is the operational target, and statutory accessibility plans, feedback processes, and progress reports are mandatory regardless of how the scorecard reads. - **Default-private working when "Work in the open" is the rule.** Standard 3 requires open-by-default. Reasons not to publish must be explicit, narrow, and time-boxed. Default-private is itself a non-conformance — remediate it, do not rationalise it. - **Uniform maturity claims rather than per-standard.** A service can be advanced on accessibility and immature on open code. The scorecard MUST report dimension-by-dimension; an aggregated overall maturity number is misleading and is not accepted by TBS reviewers. - **Confusing this with the GDS Service Standard.** The two regimes overlap conceptually but are governed differently. Use `service-assessment` for the GDS regime; this command is the GC-specific complement. --- ## Handoffs - **`service-assessment`** — Many of the GDS Service Standard points overlap with the GC Digital Standards (user research, accessibility, iteration, openness). The Digital Standards scorecard feeds the broader service-assessment evidence base directly; cross-link the same evidence rather than duplicating it. Where the regimes diverge (e.g. open-by-default, ethical AI), keep the per-standard treatment authoritative here. - **`roadmap`** — Identified gaps and remediation actions become roadmap milestones with owners, dates, and dependencies. Carry the per-standard maturity progression forward so the strategic roadmap shows how conformance improves over the planning horizon, not just feature delivery. --- ## Statutory currency The Digital Standards may be revised by TBS — the standards themselves and the *Directive on Service and Digital* both evolve, and the *Digital Operations Strategic Plan* is updated annually. The *Accessible Canada Regulations* expand in tranches across federal entities and reporting categories. Cite the version verified at the verification date in the Document Register, and re-verify on every refresh of the scorecard. Provincial accessibility regimes (AODA in Ontario, the BC Accessibility Act, Loi visant à favoriser l'intégration in Quebec) layer on top where the service has provincial reach — they require their own assessments and are out of scope here.