diff --git a/poky/documentation/test-manual/index.rst b/poky/documentation/test-manual/index.rst
index e2198c4..4c590a6 100644
--- a/poky/documentation/test-manual/index.rst
+++ b/poky/documentation/test-manual/index.rst
@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@
    intro
    test-process
    understand-autobuilder
+   reproducible-builds
+   yocto-project-compatible
    history
 
 .. include:: /boilerplate.rst
diff --git a/poky/documentation/test-manual/reproducible-builds.rst b/poky/documentation/test-manual/reproducible-builds.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e13583c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/poky/documentation/test-manual/reproducible-builds.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-2.0-UK
+
+*******************
+Reproducible Builds
+*******************
+
+================
+How we define it
+================
+
+The Yocto Project defines reproducibility as where a given input build
+configuration will give the same binary output regardless of when it is built
+(now or in 5 years time), regardless of the path on the filesystem the build is
+run in, and regardless of the distro and tools on the underlying host system the
+build is running on.
+
+==============
+Why it matters
+==============
+
+The project aligns with the `Reproducible Builds project
+<https://reproducible-builds.org/>`_, which shares information about why
+reproducibility matters. The primary focus of the project is the ability to
+detect security issues being introduced. However, from a Yocto Project
+perspective, it is also hugely important that our builds are deterministic. When
+you build a given input set of metadata, we expect you to get consistent output.
+This has always been a key focus but, :yocto_docs:`since release 3.1 ("dunfell")
+</ref-manual/migration-3.1.html#reproducible-builds-now-enabled-by-default>`,
+it is now true down to the binary level including timestamps.
+
+For example, at some point in the future life of a product, you find that you
+need to rebuild to add a security fix. If this happens, only the components that
+have been modified should change at the binary level. This would lead to much
+easier and clearer bounds on where validation is needed.
+
+This also gives an additional benefit to the project builds themselves, our hash
+equivalence for :ref:`Shared State <overview-manual/concepts:Shared State>`
+object reuse works much more effectively when the binary output remains the
+same.
+
+.. note::
+
+   We strongly advise you to make sure your project builds reproducibly
+   before finalizing your production images. It would be too late if you
+   only address this issue when the first updates are required.
+
+===================
+How we implement it
+===================
+
+There are many different aspects to build reproducibility, but some particular
+things we do within the build system to ensure reproducibility include:
+
+-  Adding mappings to the compiler options to ensure debug filepaths are mapped
+   to consistent target compatible paths. This is done through the
+   ``DEBUG_PREFIX_MAP`` variable which sets the ``-fmacro-prefix-map`` and
+   ``-fdebug-prefix-map`` compiler options correctly to map to target paths.
+-  Being explicit about recipe dependencies and their configuration (no floating
+   configure options or host dependencies creeping in). In particular this means
+   making sure :term:`PACKAGECONFIG` coverage covers configure options which may
+   otherwise try and auto-detect host dependencies.
+-  Using recipe specific sysroots to isolate recipes so they only see their
+   dependencies. These are visible as ``recipe-sysroot`` and
+   ``recipe-sysroot-native`` directories within the :term:`WORKDIR` of a given
+   recipe and are populated only with the dependencies a recipe has.
+-  Build images from a reduced package set: only packages from recipes the image
+   depends upon.
+-  Filtering the tools available from the host's ``PATH`` to only a specific set
+   of tools, set using the :term:`HOSTTOOLS` variable.
+
+=========================================
+Can we prove the project is reproducible?
+=========================================
+
+Yes, we can prove it and we regularly test this on the Autobuilder. At the
+time of writing (release 3.3, "hardknott"), :term:`OpenEmbedded-Core (OE-Core)`
+is 100% reproducible for all its recipes (i.e. world builds) apart from the Go
+language and Ruby documentation packages. Unfortunately, the current
+implementation of the Go language has fundamental reproducibility problems as
+it always depends upon the paths it is built in.
+
+.. note::
+
+   Only BitBake and :term:`OpenEmbedded-Core (OE-Core)`, which is the ``meta``
+   layer in Poky, guarantee complete reproducibility. The moment you add
+   another layer, this warranty is voided, because of additional configuration
+   files, ``bbappend`` files, overridden classes, etc.
+
+To run our automated selftest, as we use in our CI on the Autobuilder, you can
+run::
+
+   oe-selftest -r reproducible.ReproducibleTests.test_reproducible_builds
+
+This defaults to including a ``world`` build so, if other layers are added, it would
+also run the tests for recipes in the additional layers. The first build will be
+run using :ref:`Shared State <overview-manual/concepts:Shared State>` if
+available, the second build explicitly disables
+:ref:`Shared State <overview-manual/concepts:Shared State>` and builds on the
+specific host the build is running on. This means we can test reproducibility
+builds between different host distributions over time on the Autobuilder.
+
+If ``OEQA_DEBUGGING_SAVED_OUTPUT`` is set, any differing packages will be saved
+here. The test is also able to run the ``diffoscope`` command on the output to
+generate HTML files showing the differences between the packages, to aid
+debugging. On the Autobuilder, these appear under
+https://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/repro-fail/ in the form ``oe-reproducible +
+<date> + <random ID>``, e.g. ``oe-reproducible-20200202-1lm8o1th``.
+
+The project's current reproducibility status can be seen at
+:yocto_home:`/reproducible-build-results/`
+
+You can also check the reproducibility status on supported host distributions:
+
+-  CentOS: :yocto_ab:`/typhoon/#/builders/reproducible-centos`
+-  Debian: :yocto_ab:`/typhoon/#/builders/reproducible-debian`
+-  Fedora: :yocto_ab:`/typhoon/#/builders/reproducible-fedora`
+-  Ubuntu: :yocto_ab:`/typhoon/#/builders/reproducible-ubuntu`
+
+===============================
+Can I test my layer or recipes?
+===============================
+
+Once again, you can run a ``world`` test using the
+:ref:`oe-selftest <ref-manual/release-process:Testing and Quality Assurance>`
+command provided above. This functionality is implemented
+in :oe_git:`meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/reproducible.py
+</openembedded-core/tree/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/reproducible.py>`.
+
+You could subclass the test and change ``targets`` to a different target.
+
+You may also change ``sstate_targets`` which would allow you to "pre-cache" some
+set of recipes before the test, meaning they are excluded from reproducibility
+testing. As a practical example, you could set ``sstate_targets`` to
+``core-image-sato``, then setting ``targets`` to ``core-image-sato-sdk`` would
+run reproducibility tests only on the targets belonging only to ``core-image-sato-sdk``.
diff --git a/poky/documentation/test-manual/yocto-project-compatible.rst b/poky/documentation/test-manual/yocto-project-compatible.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a789746
--- /dev/null
+++ b/poky/documentation/test-manual/yocto-project-compatible.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-2.0-UK
+
+************************
+Yocto Project Compatible
+************************
+
+============
+Introduction
+============
+
+After the introduction of layers to OpenEmbedded, it quickly became clear
+that while some layers were popular and worked well, others developed a
+reputation for being "problematic". Those were layers which didn't
+interoperate well with others and tended to assume they controlled all
+the aspects of the final output.  This usually isn't intentional but happens
+because such layers are often created by developers with a particular focus
+(e.g. a company's :term:`BSP<Board Support Package (BSP)>`) whilst the end
+users have a different one (e.g. integrating that
+:term:`BSP<Board Support Package (BSP)>` into a product).
+
+As a result of noticing such patterns and friction between layers, the project
+developed the "Yocto Project Compatible" badge program, allowing layers
+following the best known practises to be marked as being widely compatible
+with other ones. This takes the form of a set of "yes/no" binary answer
+questions where layers can declare if they meet the appropriate criteria.
+In the second version of the program, a script was added to make validation
+easier and clearer, the script is called  ``yocto-check-layer`` and is
+available in :term:`OpenEmbedded-Core (OE-Core)`.
+
+See :ref:`dev-manual/common-tasks:making sure your layer is compatible with yocto project`
+for details.
+
+========
+Benefits
+========
+
+:ref:`overview-manual/yp-intro:the yocto project layer model` is powerful
+and flexible: it gives users the ultimate power to change pretty much any
+aspect of the system but as with most things, power comes with responsibility.
+The Yocto Project would like to see people able to mix and match BSPs with
+distro configs or software stacks and be able to merge succesfully.
+Over time, the project identified characteristics in layers that allow them
+to operate well together. "anti-patterns" were also found, preventing layers
+from working well together.
+
+The intent of the compatibility program is simple: if the layer passes the
+compatibility tests, it is considered "well behaved" and should operate
+and cooperate well with other compatible layers.
+
+The benefits of compatibility can be seen from multiple different user and
+member perspectives. From a hardware perspective
+(a :ref:`overview-manual/concepts:bsp layer`), compatibility means the
+hardware can be used in many different products and use cases without
+impacting the software stacks being run with it. For a company developing
+a product, compatibility gives you a specification / standard you can
+require in a contract and then know it will have certain desired
+characteristics for interoperability. It also puts constraints on how invasive
+the code bases are into the rest of the system, meaning that multiple
+different separate hardware support layers can coexist (e.g. for multiple
+product lines from different hardware manufacturers). This can also make it
+easier for one or more parties to upgrade those system components for security
+purposes during the lifecycle of a product.
+
+==================
+Validating a layer
+==================
+
+The badges are available to members of the Yocto Project (as member benefit)
+and to open source projects run on a non-commercial basis. However, anyone can
+answer the questions and run the script.
+
+The project encourages all layer maintainers to review the questions and the
+output from the script against their layer, as the way some layers are
+constructed often has unintended consequences. The questions and the script
+are designed to highlight known issues which are often easy to solve. This
+makes layers easier to use and therefore more popular.
+
+It is intended that over time, the tests will evolve as new best known
+practices are identified, and as new interoperability issues are found,
+unnecessarily restricting layer interoperability. If anyone becomes aware of
+either type, please let the project know through the
+:yocto_home:`technical calls </public-virtual-meetings/>`,
+the :yocto_home:`mailing lists </community/mailing-lists/>`
+or through the :oe_wiki:`Technical Steering Committee (TSC) </TSC>`.
+The TSC is responsible for the technical criteria used by the program.
+
+Layers are divided into three types:
+
+-  :ref:`"BSP" or "hardware support"<overview-manual/concepts:bsp layer>`
+   layers contain support for particular pieces of hardware. This includes
+   kernel and boot loader configuration, and any recipes for firmware or
+   kernel modules needed for the hardware. Such layers usually correspond
+   to a :term:`MACHINE` setting.
+
+-  :ref:`"distro" layers<overview-manual/concepts:distro layer>` defined
+   as layers providing configuration options and settings such as the
+   choice of init system, compiler and optimisation options, and
+   configuration and choices of software components. This would usually
+   correspond to a :term:`DISTRO` setting.
+
+-  "software" layers are usually recipes. A layer might target a
+   particular graphical UI or software stack component.
+
+Here are key best practices the program tries to encourage:
+
+-  A layer should clearly show who maintains it, and who change
+   submissions and bug reports should be sent to.
+
+-  Where multiple types of functionality are present, the layer should
+   be internally divided into sublayers to separate these components.
+   That's because some users may only need one of them and separability
+   is a key best practice.
+
+-  Adding a layer to a build should not modify that build, unless the
+   user changes a configuration setting to activate the layer, by selecting
+   a :term:`MACHINE`, a :term:`DISTRO` or a :term:`DISTRO_FEATURES` setting.
+
+The project does test the compatibility status of the core project layers on
+its :doc:`Autobuilder </test-manual/understand-autobuilder>`.
+
+The official form to submit compatibility requests with is at
+:yocto_home:`/ecosystem/branding/compatible-registration/`.
+Applicants can display the badge they get when their application is successful.
+