Independent trust evaluation for sign language AI.
The SLAT Index is an evaluation standard for sign language AI and AI interpreting technology, developed by Novara Consulting Group LLC, with ratings computed from evidence under published rules.
Mission, vision, and core principles
Our Mission
To give institutions a defensible, evidence-computed basis for deciding whether sign language AI belongs in the settings where they intend to deploy it, before it is purchased, deployed, or endorsed.
Our Vision
A market where no serious public buyer deploys sign language AI in a consequential setting without an independent trust evaluation, and the SLAT Index is the instrument they use.
Core Principles
Evidence Before Adoption
A demonstration is not evidence. The record is, and the record is what gets rated.
Deaf Judgment Governs
Deaf reviewer determinations apply wherever signed output is examined. Governance authority, not advisory decoration.
Computed, Not Negotiated
Ratings are computed from the evidence record under published criteria. Supplying less evidence can never earn a better rating than supplying more.
Absence Is a Finding
Where evidence does not exist, the instrument says so. A located defect is never confused with an undetermined record.
A Published, Versioned Method
The instruments in force are published, frozen by edition, and amended on the record. Conclusions are visibly the product of a process.
The rules, the publisher, and the boundary
The rules the method runs on
Each rule below is stated in the published SLAT framework. The full procedure, including panel composition, evidence classes, and publication rules, is stated in the licensed volumes.
| Rule | What it requires |
|---|---|
| 1. Ratings are computed, not negotiated | Ratings are computed from evidence under published rules. There is no departure route: an assessor who disagrees with a computed rating records the disagreement rather than adjusting the result. |
| 2. Signed output is judged by Deaf reviewers | What the output did is determined by qualified Deaf reviewers, and findings about signed output do not issue without their concurrence. |
| 3. Evidence cannot be gamed downward | Supplying less evidence can never produce a better published rating than supplying more. Disclosure is never punished relative to silence. |
| 4. Defect and absence are kept distinct | A system with a located defect and a system with an undetermined record are different findings, and the ratings keep them from being confused. |
| 5. The subject is heard | Vendors receive the evidence requests, a defined window to respond, and a documented reconciliation path where they dispute an observation. |
| 6. Findings are checked before they publish | Second-assessor review or its published substitute controls, a self-review record, and a cooling period stand between a draft and a finding. |
| 7. Independence is structural | A paid assessment is not an endorsement and is not sold as one; commissioning and fee basis are disclosed with the finding. |
| 8. The method is amended on the record | The instruments in force are versioned and amended on the record, and every amendment, correction, and decision behind the framework is documented in a public change record. |
| 9. Relationship to the other two records | Where a SLAT Index client is also documented in the Accessibility Governance Record or the National Deaf Education Data Index, the disclosure there says so. The SLAT Index's twenty-four month publication bar applies to its evaluative findings, not to the documentary findings of the other two. |
Published by Novara Consulting Group LLC
The SLAT Index is an evaluation standard developed by Novara Consulting Group LLC and published as the SLAT Index Evaluation Standard (v2) (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21537271). It is one of three instruments the publisher runs under one method, beside the Accessibility Governance Record and the National Deaf Education Data Index. Commissioning an engagement requires no license.
Heather M. Grizzle, M.A.
Co-Founder and Principal Consultant, Novara Consulting Group · Author of the SLAT Index
Heather M. Grizzle developed the SLAT Index and leads the SLAT program. A DeafBlind accessibility governance strategist, researcher, and policy scholar, she works across sign language artificial intelligence, public procurement, and institutional accountability, guiding agencies and technology partners toward decisions rooted in evidence, transparency, and the perspectives of Deaf and DeafBlind communities.
She published the SLAT Index Evaluation Standard as an open standard, edits The Fifth Parameter policy series, and holds degrees in government and psychology from Gallaudet University and a master’s degree from Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. She is fluent in English and ASL.
What the SLAT Index is not
A SLAT finding states what the evidence supports, on a published five-tier scale, with a deployment classification for the assessed setting. It is not a government certification, not legal advice, and not an endorsement. That restraint is deliberate: it is what makes the finding defensible.
SLAT engagements are governance, procurement, and risk assessments. They are not legal, medical, technical, clinical, or linguistic advice. A paid assessment is not an endorsement and is not sold as one. Findings rest on evidence available at the time of review, and organizations remain responsible for their own procurement, legal, and compliance determinations.
Evidence before adoption. Trust before deployment.
Three records, one method
Each answers a question the others cannot: what an institution publishes about how it governs accessibility, what it buys and what its vendors publish about that, whether the technology can be trusted, and whom the system serves and how it is funded. All share primary sources only, explicit gaps, and no claim beyond what the instrument's own rubric supports.
SLAT Index
This site: an evaluation standard for sign language AI and AI interpreting technology, with ratings computed from evidence under published rules.
Accessibility Governance Record
What public institutions publish about accessibility governance, and, in the Procurement Accessibility Record, what their vendors publish.
National Deaf Education Data Index
A fifty-one jurisdiction primary-source reference on Deaf education: enrollment and identified population, institutional frameworks, and fiscal allocation.
How we govern ourselves: Accessibility Statement Privacy Statement