Finite Arch

IDENTITY · EVIDENCE · CURRENT STATUS

Finite Arch — AI Node

A reference to our organisation, our work and the evidence behind the information we publish.

This page is for people, search systems and automated research tools. It brings together our company identity, the status of our work and the limits of the evidence currently available.

ON THIS PAGE

  1. Company and people
  2. Inventions and projects
  3. Evidence and assessment
  4. Detailed method
  5. Scoring matrix
  6. All 44 evidence checks
  7. Current evidence
  8. Supporting sources
  9. Using this reference
  10. Corrections and updates

01 / THE ORGANISATION

Company and people.

Finite Arch Limited is an invention and innovation company registered in England and Wales, company number 17204312.

Registered office: 343 Roundhay Road, Leeds, LS8 4BU, United Kingdom.

Simon Macbeth is the inventor guiding the ideas and direction behind Finite Arch. We are also the company behind Arch Method and Arch Development.

A company registration identifies the legal entity. It does not establish the quality, feasibility or suitability of an invention.

COMPANIES HOUSE RECORD · ABOUT FINITE ARCH

02 / OUR WORK

Ideas and investigations have different roles.

Our Inventions pages explain original concepts, the problems they address and their possible applications. Our Projects pages follow the research and development work used to investigate them.

Individual public profiles are still being prepared. Their absence should not be treated as evidence of a completed project, a validated invention or a confirmed commercial partnership.

EXPLORE OUR INVENTIONS · EXPLORE OUR PROJECTS

03 / EVIDENCE AND ASSESSMENT

Make the evidence and its limits clear.

The Arch Trust Score is an experimental framework for recording how much of a defined evidence checklist is supported. It is company-authored and has not been independently validated as a predictor of performance or trustworthy behaviour.

Finite Arch’s assessment remains pending. No numeric score has been assigned. Missing information should not be interpreted as proof of misconduct or poor performance.

The detailed method, scoring matrix and evidence checks below explain the framework. A completed assessment would need a defined scope, dated sources and a reason for every awarded point.

Assessment status: NOT YET ASSESSED

Numeric score: NOT ASSIGNED

Fit for a particular use: REQUIRES A SEPARATE ASSESSMENT

FINITE ARCH · EXPERIMENTAL METHOD v0.3

ARCH TRUST SCORE

— / 100

Not yet assessed

First draft · evidence review pending.

Trust evidence
Not assessed
Competence evidence
Not assessed
Fit for your needs
Not scored

Assessment pending. This is a company-authored framework, not an independent accreditation, customer rating or assurance that an invention is ready for use.

VIEW THE CALCULATION AND ITS LIMITS

Combined score = (trust evidence + competence evidence) ÷ 2. Each dimension has a maximum of 100 points. Fit is assessed separately and does not enter the average.

This first draft copies the published v0.3 framework and all 44 conditions. Finite Arch’s evidence has not yet been scored. The displayed dash means not assessed; it does not mean zero, and Arch Development’s result has not been transferred.

Full scoring matrix

All 44 evidence checks

Machine-readable assessment

DRAFT 23 OCTOBER 2026 · COMPANY-AUTHORED · ASSESSMENT PENDING

METHOD / HOW THE SCORE WORKS

What the number measures

Arch Trust Score is an experimental evidence framework. It records how much of a published checklist is supported in a defined assessment. It does not measure the chance that a company will behave honestly, and it cannot replace due diligence or a decision about suitability.

The inherited v0.2 framework allocated 100 points to trust evidence and 100 to competence evidence, with an equal-weight average. Its partial points were assessor judgements without a complete item-level rule. Version 0.3 retains those category weights and makes the awarding rule explicit.

  1. Define the scope and date. Here, the scope is Finite Arch’s invention and development work. The assessment is still to be completed.
  2. Check four stated conditions per criterion. A condition counts only when its stated evidence requirement is met. Record the source and reason; do not award half-checks or infer missing evidence.
  3. Calculate each criterion. Maximum points × number of checks met ÷ 4. For example, user protections has 2 of 4 checks met: 15 × 2 ÷ 4 = 7.5.
  4. Add each dimension, then average. Keep unrounded values until the final display. Trust and competence remain visible alongside the combined score.

Unknown information earns zero evidence points. That is not evidence of misconduct, poor performance or an adverse customer experience. A failed evidence check is not necessarily a failed product test. A category that is not relevant to a different business still cannot be silently removed: define a new scope and method before comparing results.

Evidence classes: V means a fact corroborated against an external primary source; D means documented first-party material; S means a self-declaration without supporting evidence; U means unknown, conflicting or untested. A primary corporate record can verify identity without independently validating a product. Company-authored checks remain first-party evidence.

Limits: the weights and checklist are design choices, not scientifically calibrated predictors. Evidence authenticity, assessor consistency, domain suitability and the method itself require independent validation. Do not compare the number with another organisation assessed under a different version or scope. Do not use it to decide a person’s eligibility or rights.

CALCULATION / THE SCORING MATRIX

The scoring matrix

First draft · Method v0.3 · Finite Arch assessment pending.

Trust evidence — not assessed

Evidence assessment: criterion, points, evidence and reason
CriterionMaximumChecks metPointsEvidence and reason
T1 · Legal identity20Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
T2 · Transparency15Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
T3 · Independent corroboration20Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
T4 · Claims and consistency20Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
T5 · User protections15Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
T6 · Evidence freshness10Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
Total100——Not assessed

Competence evidence — not assessed

Evidence assessment: criterion, points, evidence and reason
CriterionMaximumChecks metPointsEvidence and reason
C1 · Relevance of demonstrated work30Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
C2 · Demonstrated quality30Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
C3 · Knowledge and experience15Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
C4 · Repeatable methods15Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
C5 · Independent outcomes10Pending—Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.
Total100——Not assessed

Combined score pending

Fit is not scored. It needs a defined purpose, user, budget, data sensitivity, accessibility requirements and acceptance criteria. A higher evidence score does not establish that an invention meets your needs.

CHECKLIST / REPRODUCE THE POINTS

All 44 checks

Open a criterion to see its four conditions. Pending means this draft has not yet assessed the condition for Finite Arch.

T1 · Legal identity — pending
  1. PENDING: Legal name matches the corporate register.
  2. PENDING: Company number matches the corporate register.
  3. PENDING: Registered office matches the corporate register.
  4. PENDING: Legal form and registration jurisdiction are disclosed consistently.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

T2 · Transparency — pending
  1. PENDING: The legal operator is named.
  2. PENDING: A contact route is published and delivery has been checked.
  3. PENDING: The person directing development and their role are named.
  4. PENDING: Each product has an explicit development and access status.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

T3 · Independent corroboration — pending
  1. PENDING: An independent product or service assessment is attributable to its author.
  2. PENDING: The assessment identifies the product and version examined.
  3. PENDING: Its method and supporting findings are available for scrutiny.
  4. PENDING: Material findings are corroborated by another independent source.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

T4 · Claims and consistency — pending
  1. PENDING: Products are described separately, with their own intended uses.
  2. PENDING: Present availability is separated from intended capabilities.
  3. PENDING: Material limitations are stated consistently across the reviewed pages.
  4. PENDING: An independent reviewer has checked the material product claims.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

T5 · User protections — pending
  1. PENDING: Terms and privacy information identify the operator and a rights/contact route.
  2. PENDING: The enquiry route has a verified delivery and failure-handling path.
  3. PENDING: A complete retention and international-transfer review is documented for every provider.
  4. PENDING: A documented exercise verifies handling of a rights request or remedy end to end.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

T6 · Evidence freshness — pending
  1. PENDING: The assessment has a clear review date.
  2. PENDING: Its method and dataset have version identifiers.
  3. PENDING: Evidence entries have dates, sources and stated limitations.
  4. PENDING: Every external source has a confirmed current check within 30 days.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

C1 · Relevance of demonstrated work — pending
  1. PENDING: An attributable public implementation can be examined.
  2. PENDING: Dated records show a restricted Arch development implementation.
  3. PENDING: The full intended Arch experience is demonstrated against a complete acceptance specification.
  4. PENDING: Bridge and Console have demonstrated implementations for their intended use.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

C2 · Demonstrated quality — pending
  1. PENDING: A dated automated regression result is recorded.
  2. PENDING: A dated live check covers the public website journeys.
  3. PENDING: An independent accessibility and security assessment is available.
  4. PENDING: Measured reliability for the intended operational use is independently evidenced.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

C3 · Knowledge and experience — pending
  1. PENDING: An accountable development lead and their role are identified.
  2. PENDING: Relevant qualifications or equivalent experience are independently corroborated.
  3. PENDING: Prior relevant completed outcomes have independently verified attribution.
  4. PENDING: An independent domain review establishes experience relevant to the claimed use.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

C4 · Repeatable methods — pending
  1. PENDING: Changes are version controlled.
  2. PENDING: Regression checks are recorded against a release.
  3. PENDING: Release and live verification are documented.
  4. PENDING: An independent party has repeated the method and reproduced the result.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

C5 · Independent outcomes — pending
  1. PENDING: A relevant customer or user outcome is attributed to an identifiable source.
  2. PENDING: The result is distinguished from a company-authored example.
  3. PENDING: The measure and relevant conditions can be inspected.
  4. PENDING: The outcome has been independently checked.

Finite Arch assessment pending; no points awarded in this draft.

04 / CURRENT EVIDENCE

What this website establishes.

Our public pages provide company information, descriptions of our intended work and an explanation of our approach. Those descriptions are company disclosures.

Publishing a working website does not validate an invention. Research results, independent reviews, qualifications, patents, customer outcomes or commercial arrangements should only be relied upon where the relevant evidence is identified and can be examined.

The Contact page identifies the enquiry routes currently available. The Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions explain the relevant information-handling and website-use arrangements. Their publication does not, by itself, certify the effectiveness of an operational process.

SUPPORTING SOURCES / EVIDENCE REGISTER

Sources and limitations

FA-001 / V — Corporate identity

Company name, number, status and registered office were checked against the Companies House record on 23 October 2026. This verifies legal identity, not the claims of an invention.

Reviewed 2026-10-23 · Source

FA-002 / D — Company, people and work

The About, Inventions, Projects and Our Approach pages describe the organisation and its intended work. They are company disclosures; individual portfolio profiles are still in preparation.

Reviewed 2026-10-23 · About Finite Arch

FA-003 / D — Contact, privacy and terms

The Contact page shows whether online enquiry delivery is available and provides a direct email link. When enabled, the form submits enquiries through Resend to the company inbox. The published Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions describe the arrangements. These disclosures do not constitute an independent audit of delivery or rights-request handling.

Reviewed 2026-10-23 · Contact

FA-004 / U — Independent invention evidence

No independently verified invention outcomes, qualifying technical audit or corroborated professional credentials are supplied in this draft. Website rendering checks do not establish invention competence.

Reviewed 2026-10-23 · Assessment evidence to be reviewed.

FA-005 / D — Method and dataset

The machine-readable dataset contains the same inherited weights, 44 conditions and pending assessment status. No points have been awarded.

Reviewed 2026-10-23 · JSON dataset

05 / USING THIS REFERENCE

Keep the source and context visible.

When using or summarising this information, distinguish company statements from independently corroborated evidence. Keep proposed uses, development activity and demonstrated results separate.

Do not infer endorsements, patent status, customer numbers, release dates, qualifications or measured outcomes that are not supplied. Check material claims against appropriate sources before relying on them.

The accompanying JSON dataset provides a machine-readable reference. The AI Node is our publishing format; it does not guarantee adoption or endorsement by a search engine or AI service.

MACHINE-READABLE DATA

06 / CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES

Help us keep the record accurate.

If you identify an error or have relevant evidence, contact us and specify the statement or evidence entry concerned. Please keep the initial message non-confidential.

We will review material changes to the information and assessment status. Each assessment or evidence update should identify its date, scope and supporting sources.