The census reads systems this programme did not build, at commits it did not choose, and publishes what it finds. This is the same offer extended to a system you run: submit a record, get a public reading, against the same twenty requirements, with the same discipline that every verdict here already holds itself to. A file and a line, or it is not a finding.

What it is not

Not a compliance assessment. Not a certification, and not a mark anybody can display. Not a score, and not a ranking, beyond the four conformance levels (TR-1 to TR-4) already published for every system in the register. A reading says what a record establishes. It does not say whether a deployment is lawful, or good, or bad. None of that changes because the system belongs to you rather than to somebody else.

Do this first, privately

Most of what you want to know, you can find out yourself before anyone else sees it. Review reads the records a system already writes and reports which of four questions they answer. Check validates a formal Testimony Record against the published specification. Both run in the browser. Nothing is uploaded, nothing is stored, and neither requires filing anything public.

If you want a public reading

Open an evidence challenge on the repository. Name the system, paste the record or the output of Review or Check, and say what you believe it shows. Redact anything you do not want public before filing; a GitHub issue is public the moment it is opened. A reading follows the same rubric as every subject in the register, with the same citation discipline, and it is added to the register if it holds up.

Correcting a reading, yours or anyone else's

Every verdict here cites a file and a line, so a wrong one is a pull request or a reply away, not an argument. See how to challenge a finding on the standing register. Assessed systems have used this route before: the register carries corrections that came from people at the system it assessed.

Why offer this rather than wait to be asked

The census exists because nobody else was measuring this, not because this programme has standing to grade anybody. An open invitation to check the same rubric against your own system is the honest extension of that: the register is not a leaderboard this programme keeps score on alone.