For core artifacts (resources, profiles, value sets, code systems, etc.), we currently expose maturity levels, but we don't provide a way to capture or expose the support for those maturity assertions in the spec itself - it's all maintained in a horrible Google sheet (if it's maintained at all).  As a result, there's no visibility to balloters/implementers.  For IG artifacts, we don't even have that.

Proposal:
For core, expand the assertion of maturity level assertion and in IGs, add such an assertion such that if the artifact is FMM3+, it includes the words "Asserted to meet all [qa criteria]" with a link to the Confluence page that defines those criteria (making it easy for readers to find the criteria and evaluate the artifact against them).  Also define a standard complex extension to capture information supporting assertions of implementation (what system, what country) and render that as well. 

Doing this will help the reviewing community better hold us to account.  It'll also mean that the "source of truth" for key information will be present in the artifact itself, which will simplify maintenance.