The guru relationship is deliberately not institutional. A guru is authorised by his own guru, in a lineage, and the transmission is person to person. There is no board, no licence, no external certification, and, this is the point that matters, no body positioned to take the authority back.
The traditions were not naive about this. Classical sources spend a great deal of effort on how to examine a prospective guru before committing to one, and the standard advice is to take years over it. Tibetan sources say the same about a vajra master. The examination is placed before the commitment precisely because afterwards there is no exit that the tradition provides for.
The last fifty years have tested the arrangement and it has not held up well. Teachers in Hindu-derived movements, in Zen, in Tibetan Buddhism and in independent groups have been credibly accused of sexual and financial abuse of disciples, and in a number of cases the accusations were established. The recurring pattern in those cases is not that the tradition lacked ethical teaching, it had a great deal, but that it lacked a procedure. There was nobody with standing to investigate, no obligation to disclose, and a doctrine of devotion to the teacher that made complaint itself look like a spiritual failure.
Communities have responded unevenly since. Some have written ethics codes, established councils of senior teachers, published lineage records so that claims can be checked, and created complaint routes that do not run through the accused. Others have not.
When assessing anyone presented as a guru, the useful questions are the structural ones this atlas asks of every office: who authorised them, who could withdraw it, and what happens if they are accused. Where the answer to the second and third is nobody and nothing, that is a fact about the office and worth knowing.