# Threat Model

> YogoQ Core AI-readable term handoff. Preview, read-only, Reviewed/Verified only.

- Canonical URL: https://core.yogoq.com/en-US/core/threat-model
- Locale: en-US
- Content tier: db_backed
- Quality: reviewed
- Publication status: published_reviewed
- Schema version: core-reviewed-term-ai-handoff-v2
- Compatible with: core-reviewed-term-ai-handoff-v1
- Content hash: cd06b5800b5d640197fba7da0d69b0f5186179268eb294708a763a025b44cfb9
- Trust policy: core-trust-policy-v1-2026-06-22

## Short Definition

Threat Model is useful when a team needs a shared decision language, not just a definition.

## 一言でいうと

Threat Model is useful when a team needs a shared decision language, not just a definition.

## 意味

Threat Model describes a practical concept that helps teams frame a situation, compare options, and decide the next operating move. The value is not the label itself; it is the discipline of defining scope, evidence, owner, decision consequence, and review timing before the team acts. A good definition also states what is excluded, which signal changes the interpretation, and how the term should affect planning, prioritization, or accountability.

## 役立つ場面

Threat Model affects priorities, resource allocation, communication, and accountability. Priority | Clarifies what matters now | Prevents scattered execution Ownership | Makes the responsible team explicit | Reduces handoff ambiguity Evidence | Connects the concept to observable facts | Keeps decisions from becoming opinion-driven

- Priority | Clarifies what matters now | Prevents scattered execution
- Ownership | Makes the responsible team explicit | Reduces handoff ambiguity
- Evidence | Connects the concept to observable facts | Keeps decisions from becoming opinion-driven

## 使い方のポイント

- Define the scope before comparing alternatives.
- Separate facts, assumptions, and open questions.
- Tie the concept to a decision, not only to a vocabulary explanation.
- Review the definition when the customer, market, or operating context changes.
- Record the owner and review date so the term remains useful after execution starts.

## よくある誤解 / 落とし穴

- Misconception | It is only a dictionary term | In practice it should change a decision or operating behavior
- Misconception | Everyone means the same thing | Teams should write the scope and assumptions
- Misconception | It is always positive | The term can reveal constraints, risks, or reasons not to act

## 最小例

A team discussing Threat Model first writes the decision it needs to make, the evidence it has, the boundary of the term, and the trade-off it is willing to accept. The team then compares options using the same scope and records why one path is better for the current operating period. In the next review, the owner checks whether the chosen action changed the expected signal or whether the definition needs to be tightened. This makes the term useful in planning, review, and handoff conversations instead of leaving it as a glossary label.

## 似ている言葉との違い

Compare Threat Model with adjacent concepts before deciding. Threat Model | Current concept | Use when the team needs the primary decision lens Adjacent metric or framework | Supporting lens | Use when the team needs evidence or process detail General vocabulary | Broad explanation | Use only for orientation, not final decision-making

- Threat Model | Current concept | Use when the team needs the primary decision lens
- Adjacent metric or framework | Supporting lens | Use when the team needs evidence or process detail
- General vocabulary | Broad explanation | Use only for orientation, not final decision-making

## Aliases

- Threat Model (display_name, en-US)
- スレット・モデル (katakana, en-US)
- Threat Model (english_name, en-US)
- 脅威モデル (localized_title, ja-JP)

## Relations

- Vulnerability Triage: related (https://core.yogoq.com/en-US/core/vulnerability-triage)
- Privilege Exception: related (https://core.yogoq.com/en-US/core/privilege-exception)
- Access Review: related (https://core.yogoq.com/en-US/core/access-review)
- Security Incident: related (https://core.yogoq.com/en-US/core/security-incident)

## RAG Chunks

- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:definition:4b3ba0236e766d3b
- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:meaning:e5bf20186f70408e
- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:usage:fa352dbd25b64028
- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:usage:4e9ae9333723e53d
- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:misunderstandings:2cb61dca5b0bb833
- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:examples:ea70812049a13eed
- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:comparisons:fe00dc930036aeab
- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:faq:c7bf6812fc679a17
- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:faq:c35731c8a312ea99
- core:chunk:threat-model:en-US:faq:32abf7855477b6da

## FAQ

### When should I use Threat Model?

Use it when the team needs to decide scope, priority, owner, or trade-off, not when it only needs a short definition.

### What makes Threat Model useful in practice?

It becomes useful when it is tied to evidence, a decision owner, and a concrete next operating choice.

### What should I avoid?

Avoid using the term as a label without clarifying assumptions, boundaries, and how success will be judged.

## Sources

- Cybersecurity Framework (NIST) - https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework
- Privacy Framework (NIST) - https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework

## Limitations

This page is reference information for research and learning. For accounting, legal, finance, health, security, or other individual decisions, confirm against primary sources or qualified professionals.

- Public pages support general understanding and practical context; they are not professional advice for individual cases.
- Fast-changing information such as regulations, accounting standards, prices, product specs, and legal requirements should be checked against primary sources before final decisions.
- Even when AI-assisted drafting or audit is used, publication relies on quality gates and human-readable evidence.