1. Overview
Statistical analysis program that reads and writes SPSS data files and uses a text syntax.
Category: Scientific Computing & GIS.
2. Version and scope assessed
Version assessed: Pinned evidence retrieved 2026-10-23.
3. Overall determination
Computing determination
4. Principle profile
| Order | Principle | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| I | Sovereignty | Not assessed |
| II | Longevity | Not assessed |
| III | Locality | ✓ Meets |
| IV | Transparency and Control | Not assessed |
5. Fundamental requirements
| Requirement | Status |
|---|---|
| E1 Independent access to essential information | ✓ Pass |
| E2 Practicable exit and migration | ? Not Verified |
| E3 Independent interpretation and recovery | ? Not Verified |
| E4 Continuing authority and custody over already-created work | ✓ Pass |
| E5 Governability of consequential actions | ? Not Verified |
6. Evidence and verification
- E1: PSPP documents syntax files, data files, system files, and text-based portable files for storing dictionaries and cases. (source), confidence medium
- E2: Portable files and CSV output provide practical interchange, though preservation of every statistical attribute and procedure result was not tested. (source), confidence medium
- E3: The official CSV specification distinguishes VALUES from LABELS output, documents print-format trimming and writes numeric system-missing values as a space. Together with MISSING=RECODE, this can collapse missing-value distinctions; a CSV is not demonstrated to preserve the native dictionary. This is a documented format conclusion, not a conversion experiment. (source), confidence medium
- E4: Data preparation, analysis, and output generation are local operations. (source), confidence medium
- E5: The official SAVE TRANSLATE specification refuses existing-file overwrite by default and requires REPLACE; MISSING=RECODE, DROP/KEEP and UNSELECTED change the exported representation/case scope. These explicit controls resolve their documented semantics, not proof of an executed safeguard. (source), confidence medium
- sovereignty: A positive Sovereignty finding requires established E1, E2 and E4 in the declared scope. The existing access/exit/custody record for GNU PSPP does not establish all three minimums. The prior positive finding is withdrawn; recorded storage and portability strengths remain facts, not a verified failure. (source), confidence medium
- longevity: E3 is not established for GNU PSPP's existing essential-record scope. The previous Longevity finding is replaced by Not assessed, not a verified failure or a positive placeholder. (source), confidence medium
- locality: The complete analysis workflow operates locally. (source), confidence medium
- transparency: The positive control observations above do not yet establish whole-scope E5. The methodology requires that minimum before a positive Transparency and Control finding; the previous positive finding is therefore withdrawn to Not assessed, not changed to Does not meet. (source), confidence medium
- E3: The retained official specification exposes CSV label/value, missingness and case-selection loss boundaries, not native dictionary recovery. SAV/POR compression, labels/missing distinctions and independent-reader reconstruction have not been compared. Dated manual evidence is retained despite failed source retrieval. (source), confidence medium
- E5: SAVE TRANSLATE documents default overwrite refusal and explicit REPLACE, plus options that change scope/meaning. These controls are positive but do not comprehensively cover syntax transformations, effective output selection, reversal and crash recovery in the original statistical workflow. (source), confidence medium
- E2: The former E2 Pass does not establish a usable independent statistical workflow preserving native dictionary, labels and missing-value distinctions. The inspected CSV route can collapse those distinctions; alternative native routes remain unverified rather than failed. (source), confidence medium
7. Migration and recovery
Native storage format: SPSS .sav data files and plain-text syntax files.
Synchronization or runtime model: Local installation.
Example export or inspection command (not verified against any particular version or data set): pspp-convert data.sav data.csv
8. Architectural strengths
Established strengths and their scope are recorded in the evidence and assessment findings on this page.
9. Architectural limitations
- Source/retained-input inspection only; no installation or application restore performed.
- Native SAV/POR compression compatibility, independent-reader comparisons, dictionary round trips, transformation reversibility and crash recovery remain untested. Savannah source-file retrieval failed; dated retained official manual pages are used instead.
10. Assessment findings and remaining work
Evidence update: 23 October 2026
- Resolved: The official CSV specification distinguishes VALUES from LABELS output, documents print-format trimming and writes numeric system-missing values as a space. Together with MISSING=RECODE, this can collapse missing-value distinctions; a CSV is not demonstrated to preserve the native dictionary. This is a documented format conclusion, not a conversion experiment. Source.
- Resolved: The official SAVE TRANSLATE specification refuses existing-file overwrite by default and requires REPLACE; MISSING=RECODE, DROP/KEEP and UNSELECTED change the exported representation/case scope. These explicit controls resolve their documented semantics, not proof of an executed safeguard. Source.
- Open: Native SAV/POR compression compatibility, independent-reader comparisons, dictionary round trips, transformation reversibility and crash recovery remain untested. Savannah source-file retrieval failed; dated retained official manual pages are used instead. E5 needs effective transformation/save scope, output overwrite review and recoverable source/dictionary states; documented REPLACE is not a full executed safeguard.
Assessment follow-up: These bounded findings are incorporated into the evidence above. Eligibility and principle ratings are deliberately unchanged; their reconciliation and any blank-status fixes are deferred to the next pass. Reproduction details and retained inputs are in evidence/third-pass/batch-10/.
Human-readable criteria: Can an independent party reproduce the analysis from preserved data, code, units, dependencies, and provenance, and exchange results without hidden loss?
Rating reconciliation: 24 October 2026
E3 and E5 remain Not Verified for the existing declared scope. Longevity and Transparency and Control are Not assessed pending their required minimums. Sovereignty is also Not assessed because the required access/exit/custody minimums are not all established. The prior E2 Pass is withdrawn; its essential-record migration comparison remains incomplete. This is a targeted evidence decision, not a finding that the product fails. Existing E1, E4 and Locality findings were not re-certified.
Remaining: Native SAV/POR compression compatibility, independent-reader comparisons, dictionary round trips, transformation reversibility and crash recovery remain untested. Savannah source-file retrieval failed; dated retained official manual pages are used instead. E5 needs effective transformation/save scope, output overwrite review and recoverable source/dictionary states; documented REPLACE is not a full executed safeguard.
Next without installing locally: Inspect representative synthetic SAV/POR and CSV pairs with expected dictionary/labels/missingness, and seek independent-reader plus same-version syntax/overwrite/recovery records.
The individual decision and provenance are retained in evidence/rating-reconciliation/batch-10/. Overall: Insufficient evidence.
Contribute verification evidence for GNU PSPP
Have you tested clean-machine restoration, format migration, or failure rollback for GNU PSPP? We welcome reproducible laboratory logs, synthetic test fixtures, and independent assessments to resolve open findings.
Read the evaluation protocol · Submit verification records on GitHub
Individually reconciled in rating batch 10 on 24 October 2026. E3/E5 remain Not Verified for explicit missing coverage; dependent unsupported findings corrected. Previously resolved questions are retained, not counted again. E1/E4/Locality were not re-certified by this targeted review. The assessment procedure is described in the methodology.