Landmark Frameworks
ATLAS and DECOM-ATLAS
ATLAS is a five-component architecture for producing compliance evidence that survives scrutiny across jurisdictions — because in cross-border resource regulation, the constraint is almost never the rule, it is the proof.
1. The five components
| Component | What it does |
|---|---|
| Alignment | Reconciles obligations arising in different jurisdictions to a single set of controls, so that one measurement satisfies several regulators rather than each generating its own workstream. |
| Tokenisation | Renders a unit of production, emission or liability as a discrete, referenceable object, so that it can be tracked, transferred and audited rather than inferred from aggregate reporting. |
| Ledgerisation | Records those objects so that entries are tamper-evident and attributable. The purpose is not decentralisation for its own sake; it is that a verifier in one jurisdiction can rely on data produced in another. |
| Analytics | Interrogates the record for anomaly, gap and trend — including the gaps that indicate a control has stopped operating rather than a value having changed. |
| Synchronisation | Keeps the evidence current against instruments that move. An architecture that is correct at commissioning and never updated is a liability disguised as a control. |
2. The problem it addresses
A producer operating in one jurisdiction and selling into another faces two bodies of law that were drafted without reference to each other. Producer-country obligations determine whether it may operate. Destination-market obligations determine whether the goods may be sold. Both increasingly turn on evidence rather than intention.
Where that evidence does not exist, the consequence is rarely a fine. It is a default value, a detention, a refused declaration or a withdrawn product. The penalty attaches to measurement capability rather than to performance, and measurement capability is distributed according to institutional capacity rather than carbon intensity or labour standards.
3. DECOM-ATLAS
DECOM-ATLAS applies the same architecture to decommissioning, where the evidentiary problem is unusually acute because the liability outlives the asset, the operator and frequently the licence.
- Liability attribution across transfers. An interest changes hands several times before cessation. Establishing who owes what, on what basis, becomes progressively harder with each assignment.
- Financial security adequacy. Security is posted against a cost estimate made years earlier. Whether it remains adequate is a question the record should answer continuously rather than at cessation.
- Derogation evidence. Where a regime permits leaving a structure in place, the comparative assessment supporting that derogation has to be produced, and the assumption made at sanction may not hold decades later.
- Residual liability tail. Responsibility may transfer to a competent authority only after conditions are demonstrated. The length of that tail is the dominant variable in the investment case, and it is an evidentiary variable.
Relevant instruments are tracked in OGEMEX Intel under the decommissioning theme, including the OSPAR regime, the Hong Kong Convention and the European ship recycling rules.
4. Relationship to Preventive Treaty Architecture
Preventive Treaty Architecture asks what an instrument should require if disputes are to be prevented rather than adjudicated. ATLAS is the implementation layer: what an operator would have to build for those requirements to be satisfiable in practice. One is a drafting framework, the other an evidentiary one.
5. Status and use
ATLAS is a framework in development, not a product, a platform or a certification. It is published here because the terminology appears in Landmark's written work. Enquiries about application, collaboration or citation: partner@landmarkglobalpartners.uk.