Skip to content

Informative UHBS Improvements (No Normative Scoring Change)

Status: Informative RFC-style notes · UHBS 4.5.1 unchanged

These improvements are recommended without changing UHQS, weights, δ_C, or letter grades. Normative scoring changes require a separate RFC with corpus evidence, weight sensitivity, backward compatibility, and independent reproduction.

Adopt now (informative)

  1. Evaluation-intent metadata — label reports as asset quality vs program maturity vs campaign vs topology so UHQS is not misused as an org score.
  2. Engagement-yield metrics — session duration, exchanges, telemetry yield (via AEP / future informative report.json fields).
  3. Attacker- and defender-cost reporting — time, tokens, infra cost; tarpit delay may be beneficial in AEP while Module E retains latency semantics.
  4. Cloud / decoy-object coverage map — CLOUDBURST + D3FEND gap analysis for IAM tokens, presigned URLs, K8s secrets, decoy files/credentials.

Experiment (AEP)

  1. Paired decoy vs reference + evaluator control
  2. FSV across network/protocol/system/state
  3. DTDR with censoring-aware medians
  4. EER against declared budgets
  5. VoD with explicit utility models (never delta_uhqs)
  6. ICS memory/register consistency probes (lab only)

Map only / out of scope for UHQS

CDMM, Cyber-Deception Chain, 7-Criteria procurement checklists, Belief-Scepticism psychology models, game-theoretic placement planners, MTD mutation benchmarks, and topology camouflage systems remain outside generic UHQS.

Validation gate before any UHQS proposal

For each candidate metric:

  • Construct validity and collection method
  • Failure modes and minimum sample size
  • Reproducibility across ≥3 profile classes
  • Variance and correlation with Modules A–F
  • Informative report.json field first
  • Separate RFC for any weight/formula change

See ROADMAP for maturity sequencing.