pragma.vision Your technology observatory

Verification register Security & Identity

Readiness verdict

Classic McEliece ISO/IEC 18033-2 Standardization

A dated reading of what is claimed, reported, and independently verified in the current evidence.

As of
2026-07-21
Revision
1
Method
v1.3.0

Current reading

Readiness band and full integer triple

AI-assisted assembly · derived results

Readiness band

Watch

Primary summary from verified readiness

Confidence
64% · fresh
Computed at
2026-07-21T07:33:21.272891+00:00
Claimed
60

Public ambition and stated capability

Reported
53

Observed practitioner reporting

Verified
40

Independently supported evidence

Gap
+20

Claimed leads verified

Evidence strength Strong

Decision

What the current evidence supports

Human editorial judgment · 2026-07-21

Track; not yet

Why
This is a genuine milestone — the first post-quantum algorithm ever formally approved by ISO — and merits registry tracking, but the evidence mix (single-vendor PR (Post-Quantum) driving most coverage, NIST's separate HQC choice, large-key tradeoffs, and one signal found to misrepresent its own source on re-verification) means it is not yet an adoption-ready primitive for pv's own crypto surface.
Next
Monitor real-world library adoption trajectory (Debian/Ubuntu/Bouncy Castle already ship it) and watch for any NIST alignment signal before considering Classic McEliece for pv's own PQC posture. No action needed against Rule #2's hybrid-signature requirement — Classic McEliece is a KEM/encryption primitive, not a signature scheme, so it does not compete with or substitute for ML-DSA-65.

Constraints

Blockers

No named blocker is present in the current public projection.

Evidence summary

Derived counts

AI-assisted assembly

Total
4
Tier 1
0
Tier 2
4
Tier 3
0
Supports
3
Contradicts
1
Context
0
Latest observed
2026-07-15

Counts and dates only. Raw signals, private excerpts, trust records, and internal corpus material are not published here.

Publication record

Revisions

Initial public reading

  1. 2026-07-21 Reading moved from watch to watch.

Your opinion

Tell us anything.

What works, what doesn't, what's missing — especially about our watches, lenses, and the register itself. Anonymous is fine; leave an email if you'd like a reply.