ISTM that “attributable” and “contextualised” will present you with a stiff challenge in terms of operational definition and subsequent implementation.

Elsewhere there are similarly-undefined terms such as “notarise”, “scientific methodology”, “courtroom objectivity”, “monitored and evaluated for integrity”, “appropriate and accountable manner”, “smart conflict resolution incentives”, etc, etc. All these nebulous terms will have to be nailed down to actual operational definitions in order to gain the precision and coherence necessary for addressing transparency issues. And, at least until you've made a preliminary pass over these domain issues, it'll be nigh-impossible to create a reliable roadmap.

I have form on this. I'm exploring some ideas in the related area of transparency data published by the UK Parliament: https://owl-o-parl.org. It's currently in temporary suspension, pending the accumulation of enough cryptocurrency to set up a faucet labelled: "EARN REAL INTERNET MONEY JUST FOR CHECKING A FEW FACTS ABOUT PARLIAMENT".

(The transparency reporting is essentially trustworthy, the facts don't need checking. The faucet is primarily intended as a means of bribing people to expose themselves to facts about Parliament. Research from psychology suggests that voters' reported negative perceptions of MPs are only weakly held and can collapse on simple exposure to facts. Given the mess that UK politics is in, I reckon it's at least worth trying.)

Cheers

Graham