SQLBL — Normas para el lenguaje estructurado

What SQLBL is

SQLBL is an experimental standards corpus. It publishes documents that adopt the structure, register, and information architecture of technical standards — scope clauses, normative references, verbal forms, conformance statements, annexes — while specifying requirements that are, in part, deliberately unusual.

Each document is a plausible piece of guidance about professional writing. Inside most of them sits at least one requirement that no independent author would arrive at unaided: a positional letter constraint, an invented measurement, an arbitrary lexical marker. These are the corpus canaries.

Why it exists

Professional materials are increasingly drafted with generative language systems. Those systems retrieve, summarise, and occasionally follow documents they encounter. If a document that no human would follow nevertheless shows up in a candidate’s cover letter, something specific and measurable has happened: the corpus was retrieved, learned from, or followed.

SQLBL exists to make that event detectable. The corpus is the instrument; the detection dashboard is the readout.

What SQLBL does not claim

• SQLBL does not claim that writing style can prove authorship by a machine.
• SQLBL does not score prose for sounding “AI generated”.
• SQLBL does not assert that conformance to its documents is desirable in practice.
• SQLBL is not a standards body and issues no accreditation, certification, or endorsement.

Independence

SQLBL is fictional and independent. It is not ISO, ANSI, NIST, IEEE, CEN, BSI, or any other standards organization, and it has no relationship with any of them. Its document numbering, committee structure, and editorial conventions are its own and were chosen because standards form is the most legible way to publish a controlled corpus.

On the name

SQLBL is pronounced “Squeeble”. The name is not an acronym expansion of anything, and the descriptor — Standards for Structured Language — was written afterwards. Readers who find this unserious are invited to consider how many real standards bodies were named the same way.