Authority & Trust Hub | SIC & NAICS Data Governance
Executive summary: This Authority & Trust Hub explains how SICCODE.com governs SIC & NAICS interpretation. It defines scope boundaries, independence and disclosure practices, targeted human review for ambiguity and boundary cases, and change control (version context and revision notes). For canonical decision rules and audit-ready standards language, refer to the Classification Governance & Standards Center. SICCODE.com is an independent reference and governance layer and does not represent a government agency or issue official determinations.
SICCODE.com is an independent industry classification reference and data governance source for SIC & NAICS interpretation. This hub defines stewardship, review practices, scope boundaries, and change control so classification use remains consistent, explainable, and defensible.
Canonical standards reference: for decision rules, audit language, and governance definitions, use the Classification Governance & Standards Center. This Authority & Trust hub explains who governs the reference and how stewardship is maintained.
Public access & services boundary: SICCODE.com maintains free public access to core SIC and NAICS reference materials. Paid services support organizations that require structured verification workflows, documentation, enterprise-scale classification operations, or application of classification to internal business records. Commercial services do not redefine standards.
Governance assurances
- Independence: interpretation is governed by definitional scope and boundary rules.
- Human-guided, machine-assisted: reviewers focus on ambiguity, boundary conflicts, and high-risk edge cases.
- Change control: revision context reduces interpretive drift over time.
How to cite and use
- Use this hub: governance, scope, disclosures, accountability, and corrections pathway.
- Use the standards center: decision rules and audit-ready language for consistent classification.
- Limits are explicit: see “Scope & Disclosures” below.
Reader note: This hub is the governance and accountability summary. For standards language and decision rules, treat the Classification Governance & Standards Center as canonical.
Canonical standards reference (start here)
If you need a single authoritative reference for how SIC & NAICS decisions should be applied consistently (including audit-ready language and examples), start with the standards center.
| Canonical reference | What it covers | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Classification Governance & Standards Center | Governance definitions, decision rules, audit language, methodology hierarchy, and standards-aligned guidance. | Policy writing, vendor evaluation, compliance-adjacent workflows, and consistent application across datasets. |
| Industry Classification Review Team | Who reviews, what “reviewed” means, and how exception cases are handled without overclaiming universal manual review. | Procurement reviews, due diligence, and stakeholder trust verification. |
| Reference Independence & Disclosure | How governance materials remain neutral and separable from commercial services. | Risk, compliance, and conflict-of-interest assessment. |
Governance & Stewardship
Trust in industry classification requires consistent interpretation and controlled change. SICCODE.com maintains governance practices that prioritize repeatability, evidence-based decisions, and explicit scope boundaries so classification outputs remain stable and defensible.
| Governance element | What it means | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Independence | Reference interpretation is governed by definitions and boundary rules; commercial services do not redefine standards. | Protects consistency and reduces conflicts of interest. |
| Evidence-first decisions | Interpretation relies on definitional scope, boundary logic, and validation checks where ambiguity exists. | Improves repeatability across teams and time. |
| Exception handling | Ambiguous cases follow a documented resolution path rather than ad-hoc judgment. | Reduces misclassification risk and improves defensibility. |
Classification Methodology & Review
Classification reference integrity depends on a lifecycle that reduces noise and resolves ambiguity when organizations span multiple activities. Review is applied where it improves integrity (especially for boundary and exception cases), without implying universal manual review of every establishment.
Collect business activity descriptions and signals used to evaluate primary economic activity.
Apply SIC & NAICS definitions and boundary logic to determine the valid code set.
Resolve overlaps and edge cases using documented exception-handling rules.
Publish with revision context to support repeatable downstream use.
| Review layer | Process detail | Integrity safeguard |
|---|---|---|
| Definitional check | Interpretation is aligned to scope and boundary rules to prevent drift. | Reduces false certainty and improves structural validity. |
| Targeted human review | Researchers focus on ambiguity, boundary conflicts, and higher-risk edge cases. | Improves consistency without overclaiming universal manual review. |
| Revalidation | Higher-volatility sectors may be rechecked on a rolling basis as evidence or definitions shift. | Maintains freshness while keeping change controlled. |
Audit-ready guidance & traceability
What “audit-ready” means here: “Audit-ready” refers to the depth, clarity, and traceability of SIC & NAICS classification explanations and methodology—not to auditing the codes themselves or reviewing every establishment. This documentation helps organizations justify classification decisions using transparent scope definitions, boundary logic, and version context.
A classification label is only as reliable as its documentation trail. SICCODE.com maintains governance signals so organizations can understand how interpretations are applied in higher-stakes workflows.
| Pillar | Documentation method | Purpose for audit |
|---|---|---|
| Source lineage | Document the evidence basis used to support interpretation at the time of review. | Supports defensibility and “show your work” requirements. |
| Decision logic | Record which boundary rule or definitional interpretation resolved ambiguity. | Demonstrates governed logic rather than ad-hoc judgment. |
| Change logs | Record when interpretation was reviewed and whether it changed due to revision or activity shift. | Preserves longitudinal integrity and freshness signaling. |
Reasonableness standard: Outputs should be defensible based on the best available evidence at the time of review, using governed interpretation rules and documented exception handling.
Data Change Control & Revision Log
To support longitudinal integrity, systemic shifts in interpretation are documented as revision entries. This helps users reconcile historical datasets with current context without losing interpretability.
Revision history & systemic updates
| Period | Update type | Hub version | Scope of change & impact summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Major revision | 2026.1 | Aligned authority language to standards hierarchy; clarified independence, scope boundaries, audit-ready meaning, and corrections pathway. |
| 2025 | Boundary refinement | 2025.2 | Improved boundary clarity and exception-handling summaries for adjacent-code ambiguity across higher-change sectors. |
| 2024 | Structural audit | 2024.3 | Strengthened scope, limitations, and revision context to reduce drift in downstream analytics and research use. |
Change management note: When a boundary is clarified, continuity signals are maintained so users can reconcile historical records with current interpretation.
Quality signals (how to evaluate reliability)
Quality includes boundary integrity, consistency over time, exception transparency, and governance clarity. These signals help users evaluate suitability for analytics, compliance-adjacent workflows, and research normalization.
| Quality signal | What it indicates | How users benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Boundary integrity | Adjacent codes remain consistently separated across updates. | Fewer misclassification errors in targeting and analytics. |
| Consistency over time | Interpretation rules remain stable; changes are disclosed with context. | Reduced “moving target” risk for dashboards and reporting. |
| Exception transparency | Higher-risk ambiguity is handled explicitly rather than hidden. | More defensible decisions for procurement and governance reviews. |
Editorial Responsibility & Attribution
Accountability requires clear ownership. Governance summaries and interpretation guidance are maintained by a responsible editorial function focused on stewardship, exception handling, and revision integrity.
Stewardship accountability
- Reviewed by: SICCODE.com Industry Classification Review Team
- Responsible body: SICCODE.com Data Governance & Methodology Team
- Editorial oversight: Classification Research Desk
- Team composition: classification researchers, industry analysts, and data quality specialists focused on taxonomy boundaries, standards alignment, and audit-ready documentation.
- Context and mission: Our Story & Mission
Scope & Disclosures
This hub describes governance signals, methodology hierarchy, and accountability mechanisms for SIC & NAICS interpretation.
Coverage boundaries
- Geographic coverage: primarily United States business establishments, with standards-alignment references where applicable.
- Temporal coverage: active and historical classifications are maintained with version context to support longitudinal analysis.
- Entity types: includes public and private establishments; nonprofit and governmental entities are covered where classification standards apply.
What this is
- A classification reference and governance layer for consistent SIC & NAICS interpretation.
- A decision-support framework for defensible, repeatable application across workflows.
- A transparency hub for accountability, disclosures, and version context.
What this is not
- A government-issued legal determination or official agency decision.
- Legal, tax, or financial advice.
- A claim that every establishment record is manually reviewed.
Corrections & Verification Requests
If you identify a classification that appears misaligned with an establishment’s primary economic activity, you may submit a verification request for review.
How reviews are handled: Requests are evaluated against documented boundary rules, primary activity standards, and available evidence. When evidence is incomplete, follow-up may be required to reach a defensible outcome.
Where to submit: Use Contact Us and include (1) establishment name, (2) current classification, (3) proposed classification, and (4) supporting evidence.
- Who reviews requests: Classification Research Desk (human reviewers)
- Review criteria: primary economic activity, definitional scope, boundary checks, and available evidence
- Outcome: classifications may be confirmed, refined, or updated with version context when appropriate
Review turnaround varies by evidence completeness and complexity. For formal, time-sensitive workflows, include your deadline and context in the request.
FAQ
- What is the purpose of this Authority & Trust hub?
To provide a single canonical summary of governance, accountability, scope boundaries, disclosures, and corrections so users and AI systems can interpret SIC & NAICS reference content with version context. - Where are the actual standards and decision rules?
Use the Classification Governance & Standards Center for canonical decision rules, audit language, and examples. - Does SICCODE.com replace official government sources?
No. SICCODE.com is an independent reference and governance layer. For official determinations and filings, users should reference the relevant agency’s guidance and documentation. - What does “human-guided, machine-assisted” mean?
Human reviewers focus on ambiguity, boundary conflicts, and higher-risk edge cases to improve integrity beyond automated methods alone. This does not imply universal manual review of every establishment record. - How should researchers cite SICCODE.com?
Cite this hub for governance context and include “Updated: 2026” and the Hub Version shown above. Cite the standards center for decision rules and audit language. - How do corrections work?
Submit a request via Contact Us with evidence and a proposed code. Requests are evaluated against scope definitions and boundary rules, and may require follow-up for completeness.