What stays common
Begin with a clear purpose and context. Keep supported findings, claims, assumptions and gaps distinguishable. Consider alternatives. Make the limits of any conclusion visible
The application depends on the question you bring. These are separate starting points, not three stages that everyone must complete
- Could this help with something that matters to me?Personal exploration · goals, alternatives and questions for a conversation
- What supports this particular proposal?Project assessment · evidence, trade-offs and conditions for a decision
- What can we learn from the wider picture?Field or portfolio analysis · patterns, coverage and priorities for closer examination
Explore · a need or possibility
Start with the person's goals
For someone exploring a possibility for themselves, or a family member, caregiver or professional helping them clarify what would matter
The starting material is an activity, a difficulty or a hope. A project specification is not required
- Clarify the goal and setting — what would make a useful difference, what already helps, and what burdens would be acceptable
- Consider approaches and alternatives — including non-BCI options, relevant published cases and the practical support each possibility might require
- Identify what needs to be learned — separate plausible possibilities from demonstrated outcomes and prepare questions for the next conversation
A record of priorities, alternatives, case leads and open questions. It is not a judgment that a particular treatment or device is suitable for the person
The person’s preferences remain central when someone helps with the exploration. Professional suitability decisions require their own evidence and review
How to read the exploratory Impact map
Its spans help examine possible impacts; they are not measured outcome frequencies or probabilities. Likelihood remains unestimated. A case match is a lead to investigate, not a recommendation
Exploring for yourself →Supporting someone →Clinical perspective →
Assess · a defined project
Connect a proposal to its evidence and conditions
For teams developing a project and people responsible for reviewing it. The project record is shared; their responsibilities are different
- Developing the project
- Researchers and developers describe the intended use, people, system and setting, provide sources, and make assumptions and missing evidence explicit
- Reviewing the project
- A funder, editor, regulator or assurance practitioner examines the record against their own decision and responsibilities. They may need different evidence and reach different conclusions about the same proposal
The assessment examines how potential benefit, harm and uncertainty depend on the proposed use and its conditions. Alternative pathways and stress tests help identify which assumptions matter, which safeguards are needed and what should prompt another review
A project description, evidence gaps, reasoning and conditions to carry into a specific decision. For an author this may inform the next validation work; for a reviewer it may support requests for evidence or conditions for proceeding
What scores and framework references establish
Where the BCI numerical model applies, scores organize the supplied inputs and assumptions. They are not measured probabilities of harm or proof of effectiveness. Dataset and data-analysis studies receive a descriptive briefing; the numerical model does not model those activities
Framework mapping identifies relevant anchors for review. It does not establish compliance, certify a technology or approve a project
Develop an assessment →Review an assessment →Choose your specific role →
Monitor · a collection of records
Interpret patterns within a defined population
For people examining the published field or a portfolio of assessments, such as researchers, policy analysts and portfolio reviewers
- Studying the published field
- Use published BCI cases to investigate activity, evidence and gaps in documented coverage. The catalogue is a bounded collection, not a census of all BCI work
- Reviewing a portfolio
- Use the assessments you can access to examine differences and recurring questions. Their scope and completeness determine which comparisons are meaningful
Define which records answer the question, inspect their sources and coverage, then examine patterns and exceptions. Return to individual records before drawing a consequential conclusion from an aggregate view
A grounded account of patterns, missing information and questions to investigate. A field pattern does not determine an individual person's options or settle a decision about a particular project
Read the published landscape →Compare accessible assessments →
Each application needs domain knowledge
BCI is the available Compass domain today. Applying these principles elsewhere requires the field’s concepts, evidence standards, indicators, pathways and validation, alongside the reusable platform
Across all three applications, Compass supports reasoning. The people involved retain responsibility for decisions and follow-up
Guide edition · 2 October 2026
Find a guide for your role