What is ANLET? TM Forum's AN Levels Evaluation Tool
ANLET, the Autonomous Network Levels Evaluation Tool, is the TM Forum set of scenario-based questionnaires used to state the autonomous network level of an operational scenario in a consistent and repeatable way. ANLET tells you what to answer; the real work is answering each task with evidence, tracking the gaps and turning them into a roadmap.
What ANLET is
TM Forum presents ANLET as a way to clearly and explicitly assess autonomous maturity, using a series of scenario-based questionnaires and assessments that explore the different technology domains. Instead of asking how autonomous a network is overall, it asks a narrower and more useful question: for a given operational scenario, which tasks are still performed by people, and which ones are handled by systems?
ANLET works together with two other TM Forum references:
- IG1252, the evaluation methodology, defines how autonomous network levels are evaluated and how task ratings are combined into a result for the scenario.
- ANLAV, the validation service launched in June 2025, lets the TM Forum validate the ANLET evaluation data submitted by the operator.
The questionnaires belong to the TM Forum GB1059 document series. The GB1059 guidebook, published in May 2024, describes a method for generating evaluation questionnaires from the AN Levels standards. Questionnaires for specific scenarios followed, such as the GB1059C IP Network Quality Optimization Questionnaire.
How the questionnaire is structured
An ANLET evaluation has three layers. Each one narrows the question until it can be answered with facts.
Scenarios (HVS)
Each questionnaire covers a High Value Scenario, or HVS: a defined operational use case identified by a GB code, such as RAN Fault Management (GB1523A) or RAN Energy Efficiency Optimization (GB1526A). TM Forum mentions scenarios across RAN and core fault management, IP optimization, change management, network planning and energy efficiency. A level is always stated for a named scenario, never for a whole network.
Sub-scenarios
Each scenario is split into sub-scenarios that group related tasks. They make a large scenario manageable: different teams can work on different sub-scenarios, and each sub-scenario shows its own progress and its own gaps.
Tasks and the IAADE steps
Each task is rated on the L0 to L5 scale through the five IAADE steps: Intent, Awareness, Analysis, Decision and Execution. The question for each step is the same: is it done by people, by systems, or by both? The task ratings are then combined, following IG1252, into the scenario result, expressed as Lbase, Lextra and Lscenario.
The example below shows what a single answered task looks like. It was built by CEVIA for illustration and is not taken from a TM Forum questionnaire.
| Field | Example answer |
|---|---|
| Sub-scenario | Alarm handling |
| Task | Correlate alarms to a probable root cause |
| Level stated | L3 |
| Why | Correlation runs automatically within the RAN domain; engineers confirm the root cause before acting |
| Evidence | Technical: an export of correlation rules and a week of correlation logs |
| Gap to Level 4 | Correlation does not yet use transport or core data, and decisions still need human approval |
Who fills it in
ANLET is not a form for a single person. The published questionnaires direct sections to different roles: the GB1059C questionnaire, for example, addresses some parts to IP network architects and others to maintenance engineers. In practice, an evaluation brings together:
- Domain engineers and architects, who know how each task is really performed today.
- An operations or transformation lead, who coordinates the answers and owns the target level.
- An evaluator trained through the TM Forum skill path. According to TM Forum, only evaluators who have completed the AN Levels skill path, which includes hands-on ANLET training, are recognised as proficient to run assessments for ANLAV validation.
In ANN, these roles map to access rights. Client administrators and business contributors answer and attach evidence, auditors have read-only access, and each client organisation only sees its own data.
Common pitfalls: declared vs measured answers
Most weak evaluations fail for the same reasons. None of them is about technology.
- Answering for the network, not the scenario. A RAN team that is advanced on fault management may still be manual on change management. Each scenario is answered on its own.
- Describing the target, not the current state. A closed loop that is planned, in pilot or limited to one region is not the operating reality of the scenario. State what runs today.
- Declaring without measuring. "The system decides" is a claim. A system export or an execution log is a fact. Declarative evidence, such as a policy or an attestation, describes how work should be done. Technical evidence shows how it was done.
- Rounding up. A task where only execution is automated is not Level 4. At Level 4, analysis and decision are also performed by systems for that scenario.
- Treating a blank as a zero. An unanswered task is not L0. In ANN it stays "Not assessed" and is left out of the score until someone answers it.
- Letting AI answer for you. In ANN, the AI pre-fill proposes a level with a justification taken from your own documents. Each proposal is labelled "AI suggestion — to validate" and counts for nothing until a person validates or changes it.
- Collecting evidence at the end. Evidence gathered weeks after the answer is harder to find and easier to challenge. In ANN, evidence is attached to the task as soon as its level is chosen.
From ANLET answers to a roadmap
An ANLET evaluation gives more than a level. Because every task is rated step by step, it shows exactly where a scenario is held back, and that is what makes a roadmap possible.
In ANN, the results screen shows the scenario score following IG1252, an IAADE radar and the gaps for each sub-scenario. The roadmap is then built from these measured gaps in three phases:
- Close the critical gaps.
- Align with the target level.
- Consolidate and aim for advanced autonomy.
Each phase is tied to a stage of the AN Journey (gap analysis, solution design, implementation and validation) and holds actions that the team moves from "to do" to "done". Three indicators follow progress: KEI for the Zero Wait, Zero Touch and Zero Trouble goals, KCI for the share of tasks at or above target, and KBI, shown as "Not measured" because business impact needs your own cost and incident data.
When you assess several scenarios, a comparison view shows which IAADE steps are a bottleneck across them. Those shared bottlenecks are often the best place to invest first.
ANLET and ANLAV: evaluation vs validation
ANLET and ANLAV are often confused. One is an evaluation you run; the other is a validation you request.
| ANLET | ANLAV | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Scenario-based evaluation questionnaires | TM Forum assessment validation service |
| Question answered | What level does this scenario reach today? | Is the stated level validated by the TM Forum? |
| Who runs it | Operator teams, with evaluators trained through the TM Forum skill path | TM Forum (validation and panel review) |
| Output | Task ratings, a scenario result, a list of gaps | Official certificate issued by the TM Forum, result published |
ANLAV reached general availability at DTW Ignite in June 2025, after pilots with several operators. On 19 June 2025, Ericsson and TDC NET announced the first Level 4 validation through ANLAV, on the RAN Energy Efficiency Optimization scenario.
ANN covers the work between the two: a structured ANLET evaluation, typed evidence, a roadmap built from the gaps and an evidence pack ready for review. The validation itself stays with the TM Forum (ANLAV). Our ANLAV readiness page explains what the TM Forum expects from a submitted file.
The scenarios currently available in ANN are listed on the scenarios page. Others from the TM Forum catalogue are marked as coming soon. For the terms used on this page, see the glossary.