The 44 controls / TS35
TS35 · Performance and monitoring
Laboratory tests support diagnosis rather than simulate field data.
Protocol wording · 0.1.0-draft.28 · Documentation view; no website assessment.
Control rule version : 0.1.0-draft.28
Reading guide: start with applicability and required evidence, then read expectations together with their limitations. Understand C, NC, NT and NA outcomes · Prepare a dossier
Expectations and evidence
- Required inputs (protocol identifiers)
- lab-data, intent
- When it applies
- Lab performance diagnostics.
- How to check
- Retain URL, device, network profile, tool version and detailed metrics.
- Expectation
- URL, tool/version, device, network and measurements are retained; conclusions remain limited to the lab and tied to a hypothesis.
- Evidence to retain
- Reproducible Lighthouse/WebPageTest report tied to a remediation hypothesis.
- Non-applicability
- No lab diagnostic planned in this scope.
- Limitations
- A Lighthouse score of 100 guarantees neither field CWV nor rankings.
- Outcome clarification
- C requires all expectations across the declared scope. NC requires evidenced contradiction; otherwise NT. NA requires evidence of non-applicability.
- Reference scope
- Technical reference; the TSEP acceptance rule remains an editorial proposal.
Atomic rules
TS35-A01 — Repeatable laboratory context and measurements
- Required inputs (protocol identifiers)
- lab-data, intent
- When it applies
- Declared performance scope for this control and qualified reading profile.
- How to check
- Retain a planned series of 2–10 distinct Lighthouse reports, dates, URLs, tool/version, client, device, throttling, native measures and spread.
- Expectation
- Series matches planned context/count. URL contrary to plan fails; different context, missing measure or runtime error remains inconclusive.
- Evidence to retain
- Original JSON with source/date/hash; plan and supplied review when required, diagnostics and limits under docs/performance-evidence.md.
- Assumptions
- Supplied data/reviews are not authenticated. Plan precedes assessment and lab runs; a historical cohort is not preregistration.
- Inconclusive outcome
- Insufficient source/plan/dates/measures; unsupported format/profile, scope mismatch, exceeded bounds or missing review under the contract. Absence never becomes C or NA.
- Non-applicability
- No automatic atomic exemption; whole-control non-applicability requires its own evidence.
- Limitations
- C describes documentation, not good performance. No display/ranking, demonstrated cause, automatic human review or global conformity. Replay performs no new measurement.
TS35-A02 — Diagnostic hypothesis and next verification
- Required inputs (protocol identifiers)
- lab-data, intent
- When it applies
- Declared performance scope for this control and qualified reading profile.
- How to check
- Bind a supplied review to ordered reports, measured metrics, a hypothesis and next measurement. Separate laboratory, INP and field results.
- Expectation
- Bound review names hypothesis, metrics and action without field substitution. Explicit lab/CWV or TBT/INP substitution fails; absent review is inconclusive.
- Evidence to retain
- Original JSON with source/date/hash; plan and supplied review when required, diagnostics and limits under docs/performance-evidence.md.
- Assumptions
- Supplied data/reviews are not authenticated. Plan precedes assessment and lab runs; a historical cohort is not preregistration.
- Inconclusive outcome
- Insufficient source/plan/dates/measures; unsupported format/profile, scope mismatch, exceeded bounds or missing review under the contract. Absence never becomes C or NA.
- Non-applicability
- No automatic atomic exemption; whole-control non-applicability requires its own evidence.
- Limitations
- C describes documentation, not good performance. No display/ranking, demonstrated cause, automatic human review or global conformity. Replay performs no new measurement.