Assured PNT
assuredpnt.ai
§1 — Definition
Navigation Integrity
The degree to which navigation information and its associated status can be relied upon for a stated use, including the ability to identify when that reliance may no longer be appropriate.
§2 — Relationships
Closest related capability
Difference
Relationship
Closest comparison and adjacent concepts.
Navigation Integrity is closest to Assured PNT. Integrity supplies evidence about the correctness and status of navigation information; assurance determines whether the combined evidence is sufficient for mission reliance.
What separates them
Navigation Integrity addresses the trustworthiness and alerting status of navigation information; Assured PNT is the broader mission judgment about whether PNT is fit for reliance.
How they work together
Integrity monitoring and status can provide essential assurance evidence, while assurance also considers continuity, cybersecurity, operating context, procedures, and other controls.
See also
§3 — Standards and AuthorityPrimary authority ↗ Primary authority ↗
Where the terminology comes from.
The GPS Standard Positioning Service Performance Standard defines integrity in terms of trust in positioning or timing information and timely alerts, while FAA guidance shows how integrity monitoring affects operational use. LJP does not generalize aviation thresholds to other sectors.
Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Performance Standard
United States Government · GPS SPS Performance Standard, 5th Edition
Defines GPS signal-in-space integrity and the role of timely alerting for positioning and timing information.
5th Edition, April 2020
The performance standard applies to GPS SPS signal-in-space commitments, not to all navigation systems.
Navigation Aids — En Route
Federal Aviation Administration · United States AIP ENR 4.1
Explains Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring, fault detection, feedback, and operational response when GPS integrity is unavailable.
FAA material is authoritative for its aviation context; other applications require their own integrity criteria.
§4 — Evaluation
Apply the distinction to the decision at hand.
The namespace supports conversations where incorrect or misleading navigation information can be more consequential than simple unavailability.
§5 — LJP Foundation
How this capability fits the package.
Navigation Integrity frames the trust decision around navigation information, status, timely alerting, and use context without asserting a universal threshold, monitoring design, alert limit, or certification regime.
Integrity provides the trustworthiness question that complements continuity, assurance, source combination, and alternative-source availability.
§6 — Machine-Readable Resources
Public identity and discovery resources.
- Namespace manifesthttps://navigationintegrity.com/namespace.json
- Public ontologyhttps://navigationintegrity.com/ontology.jsonld
- LLM summaryhttps://navigationintegrity.com/llms.txt
- Robots policyhttps://navigationintegrity.com/robots.txt
- Sitemaphttps://navigationintegrity.com/sitemap.xml
§7 — Credibility Boundary
What this reference does not claim.
This namespace does not define integrity algorithms, alert limits, monitoring implementations, certification criteria, safety requirements, or operational thresholds.
This namespace is an LJP editorial construct. It claims no standards ownership or external endorsement and selects no vendor or implementation; protected methods and transaction materials are not disclosed.