Skip to main content

​
Why versioning matters

Compliance decisions need to be reproducible. If a fund was screened on a given date under a given set of rules, the same inputs must produce the same outputs months or years later — for audit, for reporting, and for trust. Every compliance-bearing response identifies the exact methodology used, both in the resource and in meta.methodology:
That reads as: AAOIFI Shari’ah Standard No. 21, halal.sh implementation version 2026.1.

​
Version format

  • methodology_id — the screening methodology (currently aaoifi-ss21)
  • year — calendar year of the implementation
  • revision — incremental revision within the year
The id and version are also returned as separate fields by the methodologies endpoints and inside every Evidence Packet.

​
What triggers a new version

Extraction improvements don’t bump the version: the screening logic hasn’t changed, only the quality of the data fed into it. (Improved data can still change a determination — the version tells you the rules were the same.)

​
Inspecting the methodology

The methodology, its thresholds, and its screen definitions are available directly:
There is currently a single methodology (aaoifi-ss21), and every response uses its latest version. If we ever support multiple methodologies or pinned versions, it will be additive — your existing requests won’t change.

​
Reproducibility

Given the same three inputs:
  1. Methodology version — meta.methodology (e.g. aaoifi-ss21@2026.1)
  2. Filing set — identified by filing.hash
  3. Market-data snapshot — as_of
the API produces the same determination, ratios, and pass/fail results. The AI-generated explanation prose may vary, but the quantitative outputs are deterministic.