The Table, No. 31: A standard leaves the room

Friday, 11 September 2026

From the Founding Secretariat

This week’s work carried Reseated’s process beyond the Assembly table. Members’ reports are tested for recurring patterns; proposed fixes are consulted on and put to a ballot; adopted standards are then sent to the people and institutions able to act on them. That last step is not a finish line. It is a record of what has been asked, when it was sent and whether anyone has answered.

There is also work still underway inside the process. A Cashflow Council evidence submission has been added to the record, and the consultation on the draft Cashflow Fairness standard remains open. The point of publishing each step is to make both the evidence and the route from evidence to action visible.

The week at the table

The week’s lead document was RC/PL/2026/24, a letter dated 10 September transmitting the adopted Platform Fairness Standard to national competition and consumer authorities. The Assembly adopted the standard on 13 August after a public consultation that received 487 comments. On 20 August, Reseated wrote to seven platform CEOs; those letters were delivered between 24 and 26 August, and no replies are on record. This week’s letter takes the standard to another set of institutions whose work touches competition and consumer protection.

The transmission does not claim that an authority has endorsed the standard or agreed to take a particular step. It puts the Assembly’s adopted text before national authorities and records that it was sent. That distinction matters: Reseated can set out a common practice standard and ask decision-makers to consider it, but it cannot speak for them. The seat-tracking process will continue to distinguish between a letter sent, delivery, a reply and a signature.

The standard is an attempt to describe fair practices for platforms that small businesses depend on, rather than to make accusations about one named company. Its adoption followed the Assembly’s public ballot, with 86.4 per cent voting yes and 58 per cent turnout. The next question is not simply whether a document exists, but whether the practices it describes become clearer and fairer for the businesses using these services.

Two other documents widen this week’s evidence base. On 8 September, RC/FP/2026/N.2 certified that FP-001 had passed the five-part pattern test: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. Certification means the reported issue met the Assembly’s threshold to proceed to draft-fix work; it is not a finding against a particular company. On 9 September, RC/RT/2026/24, an interim open letter titled “What 30 cities told us about Days to Open,” shared early material from the Red Tape Council’s work on the time it takes to open a business. The letter is explicitly interim: it brings observations into view without presenting them as a final standard.

Finally, RC/CF/2026/S.4, submitted on 8 September, adds evidence to the Cashflow Council’s record. Its title is “When an Invoice Becomes a Forecast: Evidence on Payment Timing.” The submission is part of the evidence file, not an adopted conclusion. Together, the documents show several stages of the same method: a pattern certified, an adopted standard transmitted, interim evidence shared and new material received.

By the numbers

As of 11 September, Reseated had 1,513 seated members in 49 countries. Members had filed 4,605 reports originating from 50 countries. These are two different measures: member location and report origin are not interchangeable, and the reports are not a count of unique businesses.

Reports by council were: Platform, 1,873; Cashflow, 1,212; Fair Play, 530; Trade, 378; Red Tape, 248; Resilience, 227; and Team, 137. The council figures total 4,605. They show where members have filed reports, not how many reports have passed the pattern test or become standards.

That distinction is important to the work. A report is an input, not a verdict. The five-part test asks whether the issue has sufficient volume, recurs frequently, appears consistently, is spread across settings and has corroboration. Only after that review does a council move toward a draft fix and consultation. The figures are a map of the evidence submitted so far, not a claim that every report describes the same experience.

From the table

Imagine a small supplier planning its month around a payment date shown in a customer’s system. The supplier has wages, rent and materials to cover. When the money does not arrive on the expected day, the owner has to decide whether to use a limited cash reserve, delay another payment or spend working hours following up. The invoice itself may be correct; the strain comes from not knowing when the funds will actually be available.

In a useful report, the owner would record the dates, what the payment terms said, when the funds arrived, what explanation was given and whether the same sequence happened again. They would remove names and identifying details if they wished to remain anonymous. A single account can show how a practice affects a business; comparisons across accounts help the council test whether it is recurring and sufficiently corroborated to justify a proposed fix.

This is why the Cashflow Council’s evidence submission matters as a contribution to a shared record, rather than as proof of a conclusion by itself. The Council’s consultation is where members and other participants can test whether the draft describes the problem accurately, identify exceptions and suggest a workable remedy. Specific dates and documents are more useful than a general statement that payment practices feel unfair.

Coming up

The consultation on CF-001, the draft Cashflow Fairness standard, remains open and is scheduled to close on 24 September. Participants can respond to the proposed wording, explain where it fits or fails their experience, and offer evidence that helps distinguish a repeated practice from an isolated case. The draft is not yet an Assembly standard; the consultation comes before any adoption ballot.

The next stage after consultation is consideration of the evidence and the proposed text. The Assembly’s adoption ballot is scheduled for 26 October through 9 November. The outcome will depend on that ballot; no result should be assumed in advance.

FP-001 has passed the pattern test, as certified in this week’s note. Its public consultation is scheduled for 13 October through 12 November. Between now and then, the record moves from certification toward a draft fix and an opportunity for public comment. Other council work continues through the same sequence: reports, review, drafting and consultation when a proposal is ready.

Reseated also holds monthly Open Tables in two sittings, one for Asia-Pacific and one for Europe, Africa and the Americas. These are spaces for members to compare experiences and ask questions about the process. Check the current Reseated notice for the next session’s joining details rather than relying on an unconfirmed date.

One thing you can do

If the Cashflow Fairness draft relates to your experience, submit a specific response before the consultation closes on 24 September. State what happened, when it happened, what you expected, what actually occurred and whether you have seen the same pattern more than once. You can remove business names and other identifying information; members remain anonymous unless they choose a public seat.

If the draft does not describe your experience, say that too. Explain what is different and what language would be more accurate. Consultation is not a popularity exercise: its purpose is to improve the proposal before the Assembly votes. The more concrete the evidence, the easier it is to test whether a proposed rule addresses a repeated problem and can be applied fairly.

Founding Secretariat, Reseated