Purpose: Maturity assessments can invite normative readings and “auditability bias,” conflating what is measurable with what is meaningful. This paper proposes a compact, transversal instrument to assess quality culture maturity as a capacity for perception and regulation rather than a moral rating. Design/methodology/approach: We develop GMCQ (French: Grille de Maturité de la Culture Qualité; English: Grid for Maturity of Quality Culture) as a 5-dimension, 15-criterion instrument scored on an ordinal M0–M5 scale. The protocol includes an evidence rule and profile-based aggregation. Two epistemic safeguards are built in: explicit non-applicability (N/A) when a criterion is structurally not meaningful, and insufficient evidence (IE) when available information does not justify a reliable score. A content validity procedure (expert panel using CVI relevance/clarity ratings) is specified for the next version. Findings: The paper delivers (i) the instrument structure with concise criterion definitions, (ii) a scoring and interpretation protocol distinguishing low maturity from low observability (N/A/IE), and (iii) illustrative fictional archetypes, including a deliberately ambiguous vignette demonstrating IE discipline. Research limitations/implications: This version reports instrument design and interpretation logic; empirical validation is staged (content validity, inter-rater reliability, construct validation). Practical implications: GMCQ supports diagnosis, training, coaching, and improvement planning while reducing common failure modes of maturity models (forced scoring, normative interpretations, auditability-driven distortions). Originality/value: GMCQ integrates N/A and IE as first-class outcomes and introduces visibility constraints (“blind spots”) as an explicit interpretation layer for maturity profiles.
Maxime Tarzaali (2026) studied this question.