Hi Rudolph. Let me try and shed a bit more light on how we try and answer this question. As noted already, the definition essentially requires documentation (including files) to be adequate to allow downstream users to use and build upon the hardware.
While that is an easy principle to state, it can be hard to apply in any specific situation. Adequacy can vary based on the type of hardware, the types of files involved, and the types of knock-on activity that users would want to engage in.
Since OSHWA knows that we will never have the in-house expertise to evaluate every situation ourselves, we rely on the community to help us work through issues.
For example, we have had community members raise concerns about various pieces of certified hardware. At the time of certification it appeared to the review team (which does not necessarily have expertise in a given area of hardware development) that there was adequate documentation and files for users. However, a community member with deeper expertise in the area raised the concern that the documentation and files were not actually adequate for the types of uses that should be possible under the definition.
In response to these concerns, we usually work with the community and the party responsible for the original certification to update the documentation. If the responsible party is able to update the documentation to meet the certification requirements, we consider the issue to be resolved. If the responsible party is not able to meet what appear to be reasonable requests from the community, we may revoke certification.
I’m sorry that does not give you a specific “we require X” type answer. I hope that it does give you a better understanding of the process, and even a sense of why there is not a single answer to that important question.