1. TGV as the source framework
Every mapping runs from a TGV criterion to a target control, never the reverse. This answers the question vendors actually ask: what Quebec requires of me, where else does it count?
2. Production, then adversarial review
Mappings are produced framework by framework, then passed to a second reading whose explicit mandate is to reject: thin links, mis-qualified relationships, circular or off-topic rationales. On HITRUST, 59 of 160 proposed mappings were rejected. Only the 101 survivors are published.
3. Every link carries a qualified relationship
| Relationship | Value | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Equivalent | equivalent | 72 |
| TGV narrower | tgv_plus_etroit | 642 |
| TGV broader | tgv_plus_large | 37 |
| Partial overlap | recoupement_partiel | 551 |
4. Every link carries a written rationale
A bare arrow is worthless in an audit. Each mapping explains why it holds and why the chosen relationship is correct.
5. Stated limits
A mapping indicates overlapping intent. It does not mean a TGV criterion automatically satisfies the target control, nor that a coverage rate equals a certification rate. Coverage percentages should be read with care: some frameworks are decomposed into very fine sub-articles, which mechanically deflates the percentage without reducing real coverage. This is why mapping counts are presented ahead of percentages.