METHODOLOGY

How we do the work

Scorecards and standards without a public methodology are just opinions. Ours is published, versioned, and revised when it is wrong.

Sourcing

• Primary sources only — statutes, regulations, meeting minutes, agency filings, court records, FOIL/FOIA productions, bylaws, and the entity's own published materials.
• Secondary sources (news articles, academic papers) are cited for context but never as the basis for a governance claim.
• Every claim on every profile is linked to the underlying source.

Scoring & rubric

• Each focus area defines its own rubric — the dimensions scored, the weighting, and the threshold for each grade band.
• Rubrics are versioned (v1.0, v1.1, etc.). When a rubric changes, all affected profiles are re-scored and the version number is visible on the profile.
• Rubric drafts are opened for public comment before adoption.

Review

• Internal review — every profile is read by a second TASFGA researcher before publication.
• Counsel review — profiles naming specific entities or officials are reviewed for defamation and factual-accuracy risk prior to release.
• Accountability Council review — systemic claims (e.g., "this agency systematically violates X") go to the Council before publication.

Corrections

See our Corrections Policy for how we handle errors. Material errors are corrected promptly, marked on the profile, and logged in a public changelog.

Conflicts of interest

• Researchers and reviewers disclose financial and personal interests in writing.
• Any researcher with a material interest in a profiled entity is recused. Recusals are logged and available on request.
• TASFGA accepts no funding from entities whose conduct it audits in an active focus area — see Transparency.

Versioning

Every published profile, standard, and scorecard carries a version number and date. Prior versions remain accessible. "Paper reform is not reform" applies to our own work: if the methodology changes, the record of that change is part of the record.