The Scaffold judgment taxonomy
Our own layer: what human judgment consists of, grounded in occupational data.
The Scaffold framework and PJRC taxonomy, built on O*NET 30.3
developed from 2025; diagnostic now at scaffold.cubelet.ai
Independent academic review of the taxonomy
found defensible but novel; one cluster flagged as weakest defensively
The Scaffold framework separates work into Pattern, Judgment, Relationship, and Creative components, built on the O*NET occupational database at version 30.3, with a seven-cluster judgment taxonomy beneath it. It began at thescaffold.co and the diagnostic now runs as part of scaffold.cubelet.ai.
It is the assessment substrate under the Mastery cell, and the reason the credential is buildable rather than aspirational. Independent academic review found the taxonomy defensible but novel, and identified one cluster as the weakest defensively.
That finding is published here rather than buried. A taxonomy whose weak point is hidden is not one anybody should be assessed against, and this site would be failing its own gate if it made the claim without the caveat.
Who is qualified to overrule the machine, and how would you prove it?
For each workflow, what is the human to agent ratio, and who signs the quality baseline?
How does tacit judgment become reusable, and who owns the loop that has to close?