# Democratic Fitness Indicator (DFI)

## Verification Guidelines 3.1

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1 Purpose and Scope

These verification guidelines establish a systematic approach to validating DFI research outputs prior to scoring. The verification process ensures accuracy, methodological consistency, and proper application of the DFI framework across all evaluated countries.

The verification process serves three primary functions:
1. Ensuring factual accuracy of all documented features
2. Validating correct application of the DFI methodology
3. Independently verifying quantitative metrics and calculations

### 1.2 Verification Philosophy

Verification within the DFI framework follows the principle of methodological transparency and reproducibility. All classifications must be traceable to authoritative sources, and all calculations must be independently reproducible. The verification process aims to eliminate subjectivity through rigorous documentation requirements and standardized procedures.

## 2. Core Verification Principles

### 2.1 Evidence-Based Verification

- All factual claims must be independently verifiable through authoritative sources
- Legal provisions must be checked against official government publications
- Institutional classifications must conform exactly to DFI model definitions
- Statistical calculations must be mathematically reproducible
- Multiple sources should be used to verify key institutional features

### 2.2 Documentation Quality Control

- Citations must include specific article/section references
- URLs must be functional, permanent, and link to authoritative sources
- Direct quotes must be checked for accuracy and contextual integrity
- Translation quality must be verified for non-English sources
- Evidence hierarchy must be respected (primary legal sources preferred)

### 2.3 Methodological Consistency

- DFI criteria must be applied uniformly across all countries
- Classifications must align precisely with written DFI model definitions
- Population calculations must use consistent data sources
- Country size classifications must be accurately applied
- Similar institutional designs must be classified consistently

### 2.4 Independent Calculation Requirements

- All quantitative metrics must be independently recalculated
- Original data sources must be accessed directly
- Calculation methodologies must be explicitly documented
- Discrepancies between original research and verification must be explained
- Final determinations must be based on verified calculations

## 3. General Verification Process

### 3.1 Initial Documentation Review

1. Review research documentation for completeness
2. Identify all factual claims requiring verification
3. Check proper application of DFI categories
4. Verify all cited sources are accessible
5. Identify quantitative components requiring independent calculation

### 3.2 Source Authentication

1. Verify all primary legal sources against official government repositories
2. Check currency of legal provisions (including recent amendments)
3. Verify translation accuracy for non-English sources
4. Confirm academic source credibility and relevance
5. Verify data source reliability for statistical information

### 3.3 Classification Validation

1. Compare claimed classifications with DFI definitions
2. Verify evidence supports classification determination
3. Check for consistent application of classification criteria
4. Identify any classification edge cases or ambiguities
5. Ensure classification aligns with substantive institutional reality

### 3.4 Independent Recalculation Protocol

1. Obtain original data directly from authoritative sources
2. Apply DFI calculation methodology exactly as specified
3. Document calculation process step-by-step
4. Compare results with original research claims
5. Document and explain any discrepancies

### 3.5 Discrepancy Resolution Procedure

1. Document nature and extent of discrepancy
2. Determine whether discrepancy affects classification
3. Seek additional authoritative sources if needed
4. Re-examine methodological application
5. Document final determination with justification

## 4. Category-Specific Verification Guidelines

### 4.1 Core Country Information

#### 4.1.1 Population Data Verification
- Verify population figures against at least two official sources:
  - National statistical office
  - World Bank or UN population data
  - Most recent national census
- Document date of population data with specific citation
- Verify consistency between population figures used for threshold calculations
- Independently calculate all population-dependent thresholds

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Population Figure: [Number]
Primary Source: [Source name, URL, date]
Secondary Source: [Source name, URL, date]
Date of Data: [Year]
Discrepancy (if any): [Explanation]
Impact on Classification: [Description]
```

#### 4.1.2 Constitutional System Verification
- Verify constitutional system classification against constitutional text
- Confirm electoral system for head of government/state
- Verify relationship between executive and legislative branches
- Check legislative structure (unicameral/bicameral)
- Confirm currency of constitutional provisions

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Constitutional System: [Presidential/Parliamentary/Semi-Presidential/Other]
Primary Constitutional Source: [Document name, article numbers, URL]
Head of State Selection: [Method with citation]
Head of Government Selection: [Method with citation]
Legislative Structure: [Description with citation]
Last Constitutional Amendment: [Date with citation]
```

#### 4.1.3 Country Size Classification Verification
- Verify country population falls within claimed size category:
  - Small: <10 million
  - Medium: 10-50 million
  - Large: >50 million
- Confirm correct population thresholds applied throughout all categories
- Verify appropriate signature thresholds applied based on country size
- Check consistent application of size classification across all categories

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Verified Population: [Number]
Country Size Classification: [Small/Medium/Large]
Threshold Verification:
- Recall Mechanisms: [Correct threshold applied? Yes/No]
- Parliamentary Initiative: [Correct threshold applied? Yes/No]
- Referenda: [Correct threshold applied? Yes/No]
- Citizens' Assemblies: [Correct threshold applied? Yes/No]
- Constitutional Change: [Correct threshold applied? Yes/No]
```

### 4.2 Elections

#### 4.2.1 Campaign Finance Controls Verification

##### 4.2.1.1 Account Structure Verification
- Verify legal requirements for official campaign accounts
- Confirm whether all spending must go through official accounts
- Check provisions for reporting and oversight
- Verify classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Account Structure: [All spending through official account/Mixed system/No official account]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation with article/section]
Oversight Mechanism: [Description with citation]
Classification Justification: [Explanation]
```

##### 4.2.1.2 Donation Restrictions Verification

**Foreign Donation Restrictions**
- Verify legal prohibitions on foreign donations through:
  - Official campaign accounts
  - Other campaign channels
- Independently assess whether complete prohibition, partial restriction, or allowance
- Verify correct penalty application if restrictions absent

**Independent Calculation Required:**
- Obtain and review complete electoral code and campaign finance laws
- Identify all provisions related to foreign donations
- Document specific prohibitions, exceptions, and allowed channels
- Verify classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Official Campaign Account: [Prohibited/Partially restricted/Allowed]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation with article/section]

Other Campaign Channels: [Prohibited/Partially restricted/Allowed]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation with article/section]

Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Penalty Justification: [Explanation]
```

**Foreign Donation Loopholes Verification**
- Independently assess existence of loopholes through systematic investigation:
  1. Subsidiary Corporations Assessment
     - Verify whether domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations can donate
     - Check requirements for establishing domestic origin of funds
     - Review any relevant advisory opinions or court decisions
    
  2. Nonprofit/Shell Company Assessment
     - Verify disclosure requirements for politically active entities
     - Check beneficial ownership transparency requirements
     - Review documented cases of opaque funding channels
    
  3. Enforcement Gap Assessment
     - Verify resources and powers of enforcement bodies
     - Check procedural hurdles for investigating violations
     - Review historical enforcement record

**Independent Verification Required:**
- Review electoral commission reports and enforcement actions
- Examine academic and watchdog organization research
- Review court cases addressing campaign finance violations
- Identify any documented instances of foreign influence through technical loopholes

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Loophole Assessment Summary:
1. Subsidiary Corporation Channel: [Exists/Does Not Exist]
   Evidence: [Documentation with specific citation]

2. Nonprofit/Dark Money Channel: [Exists/Does Not Exist]
   Evidence: [Documentation with specific citation]

3. Enforcement Gap Analysis: [Significant/Minor/None]
   Evidence: [Documentation with specific citation]

Documented Exploitation Examples:
[List specific examples with citations]

Loophole Determination: [Exist/Do Not Exist]
Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Justification: [Explanation based on evidence standard]
```

**Corporate Donation Restrictions**
- Verify legal prohibitions on corporate donations through:
  - Official campaign accounts
  - Other campaign channels
  - Non-election political activities
- Independently assess whether complete prohibition, partial restriction, or allowance
- Verify correct penalty application if restrictions absent

**Independent Verification Required:**
- Review complete electoral code and campaign finance laws
- Identify all provisions related to corporate donations
- Document specific prohibitions, exceptions, and allowed channels
- Verify classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Official Campaign Account: [Prohibited/Limited with caps/Unrestricted]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation with article/section]

Other Campaign Channels: [Prohibited/Limited with caps/Unrestricted]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation with article/section]

Non-Election Political Activities: [Prohibited/Restricted/Allowed]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation with article/section]

Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Penalty Justification: [Explanation]
```

**Individual Donation Limits**
- Verify legal limits on individual donations to:
  - Presidential candidates
  - Political parties
- Independently calculate limits as multiples of average monthly salary

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Legal donation limits (with exact citation)
   - Average monthly salary (from national statistical office)
   - Minimum wage (if relevant for calculations)

2. Calculate ratio:
   - Donation limit ÷ Average monthly salary = X average monthly salaries

3. Classify according to DFI thresholds:
   - Below 3 average monthly salaries/year
   - 3-5 average monthly salaries/year
   - Above 5 average monthly salaries/year
   - No limit

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Presidential Candidate Donations:
Legal Limit: [Amount in local currency]
Source: [Exact citation]

Average Monthly Salary: [Amount in local currency]
Source: [Statistical office, date]

Calculated Ratio: [X average monthly salaries]
Classification: [Below 3/3-5/Above 5/No limit]

Political Party Donations:
Legal Limit: [Amount in local currency]
Source: [Exact citation]

Calculated Ratio: [X average monthly salaries]
Classification: [Below 3/3-5/Above 5/No limit]

Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Penalty Justification: [Explanation]
```

##### 4.2.1.3 Campaign Spending Controls Verification

**Presidential Election Campaigns**
- Verify legal spending limits for presidential campaigns
- Independently calculate limits against DFI formula threshold
- Verify classification and appropriate penalty application

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Legal spending limit (with exact citation)
   - GDP per capita (from national statistical office or World Bank)
   - Voting population size (from electoral commission)

2. Calculate DFI formula threshold:
   - 0.0015% of voting population × GDP per capita = Formula threshold

3. Compare actual limit to formula threshold:
   - If actual limit ≤ Formula threshold: Strict limit
   - If actual limit > Formula threshold but ≤ 2× Formula threshold: Soft cap
   - If actual limit > 2× Formula threshold: Low cap
   - If no limit exists: Apply penalty

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Presidential Campaign Spending:
Legal Limit: [Amount in local currency]
Source: [Exact citation]

GDP per capita: [Amount]
Source: [Statistical office or World Bank, date]

Voting Population: [Number]
Source: [Electoral commission, date]

Formula Threshold Calculation:
0.0015% × [Voting Population] × [GDP per capita] = [Result]

Classification: [Strict limits/Soft caps/Low caps/No limits]

Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Penalty Justification: [Explanation]
```

**Parliamentary Election Campaigns**
- Verify legal spending limits for:
  - Individual candidate campaigns
  - Political party campaigns
- Independently calculate limits against DFI formula thresholds
- Verify classification and appropriate penalty application

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Legal spending limits (with exact citation)
   - GDP per capita (from national statistical office or World Bank)
   - Constituency populations (from electoral commission)

2. Calculate DFI formula threshold for each constituency:
   - [(1.1 × GDP per capita) + (constituency population × 0.000005 × GDP per capita)]

3. Compare actual limits to formula thresholds:
   - If actual limit ≤ Formula threshold: Strict limit
   - If actual limit > Formula threshold but ≤ 2× Formula threshold: Soft cap
   - If actual limit > 2× Formula threshold: Low cap
   - If no limit exists: Apply penalty

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Individual Candidate Spending:
Legal Limit: [Amount in local currency]
Source: [Exact citation]

Constituency Population Range: [Min-Max]
Source: [Electoral commission, date]

Formula Threshold Calculation (sample constituency):
[(1.1 × [GDP per capita]) + ([constituency population] × 0.000005 × [GDP per capita])] = [Result]

Classification: [Strict limits/Soft caps/Low caps/No limits]

Political Party Campaign Spending:
Legal Limit: [Amount in local currency]
Source: [Exact citation]

Formula Threshold Calculation:
[Same calculation as above]

Classification: [Strict limits/Soft caps/Low caps/No limits]

Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Penalty Justification: [Explanation]
```

##### 4.2.1.4 Public Funding Systems Verification

n/a

##### 4.2.1.5 Transparency Requirements Verification
- Verify disclosure requirements for campaign donations
- Independently calculate disclosure thresholds against minimum wage
- Check publication format and accessibility
- Verify classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Legal disclosure threshold (with exact citation)
   - Monthly minimum wage (from labor ministry or statistical office)

2. Calculate disclosure threshold as percentage of minimum wage:
   - Disclosure threshold ÷ Monthly minimum wage × 100 = X% of monthly minimum wage

3. Assess disclosure content requirements:
   - Donor identification requirements
   - Donation details requirements
   - Public accessibility format

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Disclosure Threshold: [Amount in local currency]
Source: [Exact citation]

Monthly Minimum Wage: [Amount in local currency]
Source: [Labor ministry or statistical office, date]

10% of Monthly Minimum Wage: [Amount]
Disclosure Threshold as Percentage: [X%]

Donor Identification Requirements:
- Full name: [Yes/No]
- Geographic identifier: [Yes/No]
- Registration/ID number: [Yes/No]

Donation Details Requirements:
- Amount: [Yes/No]
- Date: [Yes/No]
- Form of donation: [Yes/No]

Public Accessibility:
- Searchable database: [Yes/No]
- Machine-readable format: [Yes/No]
- Free access: [Yes/No]

Classification: [Full/Partial/Limited/No disclosure]

Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Penalty Justification: [Explanation]
```

#### 4.2.2 Electoral District Design Verification

##### 4.2.2.1 Population Deviation Verification
- Verify population variation between electoral districts
- Independently calculate maximum deviation percentage
- Verify classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Constituency populations or eligible voters per district (from electoral commission)
   - Seats allocated to each district (from electoral law)

2. Calculate ideal district size:
   - Total population ÷ Total number of seats = Ideal population per seat

3. For each district, calculate deviation:
   - |(Actual population per seat - Ideal population per seat)| ÷ Ideal population per seat × 100 = Deviation percentage

4. Identify maximum deviation percentage

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Districting Source Data:
Total Population/Eligible Voters: [Number]
Total Seats: [Number]
Ideal Population per Seat: [Number]

District Analysis (sample of districts):
District 1: [Population], [Seats], [Population/Seat], [Deviation %]
District 2: [Population], [Seats], [Population/Seat], [Deviation %]
[Continue for significant outliers]

Maximum Deviation: [X%]
Classification: [±0-5%/±5.1-15%/>15%/No standards]

Evidence Source: [Electoral commission data, date]
```

##### 4.2.2.2 District Boundary Drawing Verification
- Verify legal mechanism for drawing district boundaries
- Confirm independence level of boundary-drawing authority
- Check oversight mechanisms
- Verify classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Boundary-Drawing Authority: [Body name]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Body Composition:
- [Description of membership]
- [Description of appointment process]

Independence Assessment:
- Political appointment: [Yes/No]
- Partisan membership: [Yes/No]
- Term of office security: [Yes/No]

Oversight Mechanisms:
- Judicial review: [Yes/No]
- Public consultation: [Yes/No]
- Transparency requirements: [Yes/No]

Classification: [Independent commission/Mixed process/Legislative with oversight/Legislative without oversight]

Evidence Source: [Citation]
```

##### 4.2.2.3 District Type Structure Verification
- Verify district structure for both houses (if bicameral)
- Confirm seat allocation method
- Check proportional nature of the system
- Verify classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Lower House:
District Structure: [At-large/Multi-member/Mixed/Single-member]
Number of Districts: [Number]
Seats per District: [Range]
Method of Seat Allocation: [Description]

Upper House (if applicable):
District Structure: [At-large/Multi-member/Mixed/Single-member]
Number of Districts: [Number]
Seats per District: [Range]
Method of Seat Allocation: [Description]

Fixed Territorial Units Assessment (for upper house):
- Districts are fixed territorial units: [Yes/No]
- Districts are drawn electoral districts: [Yes/No]

Classification: [At-large PR/Multi-member PR/Mixed system/Single-member]

Evidence Source: [Electoral law citation]
```

#### 4.2.3 Parliamentary Election Vote Counting Methods Verification

- Verify vote counting method for lower and upper houses
- Check legal basis in electoral laws
- Independently confirm classification against DFI criteria
- For mixed systems, verify proportion of seats by each method

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Electoral system description (from electoral laws)
   - Seat allocation formulas (from electoral laws)
   - For mixed systems: exact distribution of seats by method

2. For mixed systems, calculate proportions:
   - Number of seats by Method A ÷ Total seats = X%
   - Number of seats by Method B ÷ Total seats = Y%

3. For mixed systems, determine compensatory nature:
   - Verify whether proportional component compensates for disproportionality in majoritarian component

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Lower House:
Electoral System: [System name as per DFI categories]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Seat Allocation Formula: [Description with citation]

For Mixed Systems:
- Component A: [System name], [Number of seats], [Percentage]
- Component B: [System name], [Number of seats], [Percentage]
- Compensatory Mechanism: [Yes/No with explanation]

Upper House (if applicable):
Electoral System: [System name as per DFI categories]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Seat Allocation Formula: [Description with citation]

Classification:
- Lower House: [Classification as per DFI categories]
- Upper House: [Classification as per DFI categories]

Evidence Source: [Electoral law citation]
```

#### 4.2.4 Electoral Threshold Verification

- Verify legal threshold for parliamentary entry
- Check different thresholds for individual parties vs. coalitions
- Confirm applicability to electoral system
- Verify classification and appropriate penalty application

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Legal threshold provisions (from electoral laws)
   - Different thresholds for different electoral entities
   - Exceptions for specific groups (e.g., national minorities)

2. Verify applicability:
   - Confirm electoral system is proportional or mixed with proportional component
   - For non-applicable systems, verify weight redistribution

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Electoral Threshold:
Standard Party Threshold: [Percentage]
Coalition Threshold: [Percentage]
Special Group Exceptions: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Applicability Assessment:
Electoral System: [Description]
Proportional Component: [Yes/No]

Classification: [No Threshold/Very Low/Low/Medium/High]

For High Threshold:
Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Penalty Justification: [Explanation]

For Non-Applicable Systems:
Weight Redistribution: [Description of calculation]

Evidence Source: [Electoral law citation]
```

#### 4.2.5 Presidential Election Voting Methods Verification

- Verify voting method for presidential elections
- Check if direct presidential elections exist
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria
- For countries without presidential elections, verify weight redistribution

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Presidential election provisions (from constitution and electoral laws)
   - Voting system description
   - Runoff or alternative vote provisions

2. For countries without presidential elections:
   - Verify head of state selection method
   - Confirm weight redistribution calculation

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Presidential Election System:
Voting Method: [System name as per DFI categories]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Runoff Provisions: [Description]

For Two-Round Systems:
First Round Requirement: [Percentage]
Second Round Qualification: [Top X candidates]

For Qualified Plurality:
Required Percentage: [X%]
Lead Margin Requirement: [Description]

Classification: [Ranked Choice/Two-Round/Qualified Plurality/Simple Majority]

For Countries without Presidential Elections:
Head of State Selection: [Method]
Weight Redistribution: [Description of calculation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and electoral law citation]
```

#### 4.2.6 Electoral Disproportionality and Intentional Gerrymandering Verification

The DFI v3.1 framework splits the previous single "gerrymandering" row into two independent assessments — Electoral disproportionality (Gallagher Index) and Intentional gerrymandering (binary intent). Each must be independently verified.

The full methodology is in Scoring Guidelines §1.3 + §1.4 and the companion methodology files `Electoral disproportionality 1.2.md` and `Intentional gerrymandering 1.0.md`.

##### Verification — Electoral Disproportionality (§1.3)

- Verify the Gallagher Index computation from official election results
- Confirm chamber applicability (Not Applicable for appointed/hereditary/indirectly-elected/fixed-territorial-unit chambers)
- Confirm classification (Minimal/Limited/Severe) and per-chamber penalty application
- Confirm asymmetric chamber-pair handling (max-per-chamber-penalty-value convention)

**Independent Calculation Required:**

1. Obtain official election results from the electoral commission:
   - National-level vote totals by party (per chamber)
   - Seat allocation by party (per chamber)
   - Most recent complete national election cycle

2. Independently compute Gallagher Index:
   - For each party with ≥1% of national vote: V% = party votes ÷ total valid votes × 100; S% = party seats ÷ total seats × 100; (V−S)²
   - Aggregate sub-1% parties into "Other" only if combined share ≤2%; otherwise list each individually
   - Sum (V−S)² across all parties; divide by 2; take square root

3. Confirm satellite-party handling: where major parties field PR-only "satellite" lists (e.g., South Korea), confirm researchers used constituency-vote framing, not PR-vote framing.

4. Confirm mixed-system handling: PR-block (Zweitstimme equivalent) is the default vote-share denominator unless satellite-party clause applies.

5. Look up the bracket: <7 Minimal / 7–15 Limited / >15 Severe. Confirm penalty per chamber per Scoring Guidelines §1.3.5.

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Electoral Disproportionality Assessment:
Election Date: [Date]
Source of Results: [Electoral commission, URL]
Chamber: [Lower / Upper / Single / Not applicable]

Total Valid Votes: [Number]
Total Seats: [Number]

Gallagher Index Calculation:
Party        V%      S%      (V−S)²
[Party 1]    ...     ...     ...
[Party 2]    ...     ...     ...
...
Other        ...     ...     ...

Sum of (V−S)² = [Number]
Divided by 2  = [Number]
Square root   = [Gallagher Index, 1 decimal]

Classification: [Minimal / Limited / Severe]
Per-chamber Penalty: [-25% / -50% / -100% / None]
Asymmetric chamber pair (if applicable): max-per-chamber-penalty = [-X%]

Methodology Notes:
[Vote-share basis — PR-block / SMD / Zweitstimme; sub-1% handling; satellite-party clause if applicable]
```

##### Verification — Intentional Gerrymandering (§1.4)

- Verify the boundary-drawing process documentation
- Confirm Strong-evidence (Type A/B/C) findings against the currently-in-force map
- Confirm classification (Not applicable / Not present / Present per chamber)
- Confirm penalty application per Scoring Guidelines §1.4.5

**Independent Verification Required:**

1. Confirm boundary-drawing authority (legislature / independent commission / courts) and the date the currently-in-force map was finalized

2. For each chamber where boundaries are drawn, independently search for:
   - **Type A — Court rulings** finding partisan or racially-discriminatory intent in the current map
   - **Type B — Legislative-record evidence** showing partisan-advantage as the explicit boundary-drawing goal
   - **Type C — Public partisan-advantage statements** by lawmakers/officials with authority over the boundary process

3. Confirm Type D (quantitative pattern) is not used alone as evidence — it requires corroboration

4. Apply present-state rule: only currently-in-force boundaries matter; past manipulations of redrawn maps don't count

5. Confirm federal-aggregate treatment for federal countries (USA, Canada, Australia): if any single state's currently-in-force map has Strong-evidence intent for the federal lower house, the federal classification is Present

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Intentional Gerrymandering Assessment:
Chamber: [Lower / Upper / Both / Single / Not applicable]
Currently-in-force map finalized: [Date]
Boundary-drawing authority: [Body, statutory framework]

Strong Evidence Findings:
Type A (court rulings): [Yes / No — cite case if Yes]
Type B (legislative-record): [Yes / No — cite source if Yes]
Type C (public statements): [Yes / No — cite statement and date if Yes]
Type D (quantitative pattern, supporting only): [if any noted, summarize]

Edge Cases:
- Court-stayed map under appeal: [if applicable]
- Court-ordered remedial map: [if applicable]
- Stacked nominally-independent commission: [if applicable]

Federal aggregation (federal countries only):
Per-state findings: [list state-level Type A/B/C evidence]
Aggregate classification: [based on highest-evidence per chamber]

Classification: [Not applicable / Not present / Present]
Per-chamber Penalty: [-50% (upper only) / -100% (lower / both / single) / None]
```

#### 4.2.7 Distortions of Popular Vote Verification

- Verify existence of mechanisms that can override popular vote:
  - Electoral College mechanisms
  - Monarch's powers
  - Religious authorities' vetoes
  - Military vetoes
  - Ethnic/traditional leaders' special powers
  - Unelected upper house with legislative powers
  - Presidential powers to dissolve parliament

- Verify historical use of these powers (for penalty determination)
- Confirm classification and appropriate penalty application

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. For each potential distortion, obtain:
   - Constitutional or legal provisions (with exact citation)
   - Historical record of actual use in last 100 years
   - Expert assessments of impact

2. For unelected upper house powers, verify:
   - Veto powers over legislation
   - Extent of powers (all legislation or regional issues)
   - Requirements to overcome opposition
   - Delay capacities

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Distortion Mechanism: [Specific mechanism]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Constitutional/Legal Powers:
- [Description of specific powers]
- [Limitations on powers]
- [Override mechanisms]

Historical Usage (Last 100 Years):
- [Documented instances with dates]
- [Sources confirming usage]

Expert Assessments:
- [Citations from authoritative sources]

Impact Determination:
- Full Impact Applied: [Yes/No]
- Half Impact Applied: [Yes/No]
- Justification: [Explanation based on historical usage]

Classification: [Specific distortion category]

Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Penalty Calculation: [Mathematical application]
```

### 4.3 Holding Politicians Accountable

#### 4.3.1 National-Level Recall Referendums Verification

##### 4.3.1.1 Presidential Recall Verification
- Verify existence of citizen-initiated presidential recall mechanism
- Independently calculate signature requirements against population
- Verify electronic/paper signature requirements
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Recall provisions (from constitution and relevant laws)
   - Required signatures (with exact citation)
   - Country population (from verified sources)

2. Calculate signature percentage:
   - Required signatures ÷ Total population = X%

3. Classify according to country size:
   - Small Countries (<10 million): Low (<1.5%), Medium (1.5-3%), High (>3%)
   - Medium Countries (10-50 million): Low (<0.75%), Medium (0.75-1.5%), High (>1.5%)
   - Large Countries (>50 million): Low (<0.4%), Medium (0.4-0.8%), High (>0.8%)

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Presidential Recall Mechanism:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Yes:
Required Signatures: [Number]
Population: [Number]
Signature Percentage: [X%]
Country Size Category: [Small/Medium/Large]

Signature Method:
Electronic Signatures Allowed: [Yes/No]
Paper Signatures Required: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Classification: [Low/Medium/High Threshold]
Multiplier: [100%/75%]

If No:
Verification of Absence: [Multiple source confirmation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and legal citation]
```

##### 4.3.1.2 Full Parliament Recall Verification
- Verify existence of citizen-initiated full parliament recall mechanism
- Independently calculate signature requirements against population
- Verify electronic/paper signature requirements
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Full parliament recall provisions (from constitution and relevant laws)
   - Required signatures (with exact citation)
   - Country population (from verified sources)

2. Calculate signature percentage:
   - Required signatures ÷ Total population = X%

3. Classify according to country size (same thresholds as presidential recall)

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Full Parliament Recall Mechanism:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Yes:
Required Signatures: [Number]
Population: [Number]
Signature Percentage: [X%]
Country Size Category: [Small/Medium/Large]

Signature Method:
Electronic Signatures Allowed: [Yes/No]
Paper Signatures Required: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Classification: [Low/Medium/High Threshold]
Multiplier: [100%/75%]

If No:
Verification of Absence: [Multiple source confirmation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and legal citation]
```

##### 4.3.1.3 Partial Parliament Recall Verification
- Verify existence of citizen-initiated partial parliament recall mechanism
- Independently calculate signature requirements against population
- Verify electronic/paper signature requirements
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Verification Required:**
- Same requirements as full parliament recall

##### 4.3.1.4 Individual Legislator Recall Verification
- Verify existence of citizen-initiated individual legislator recall mechanism
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Individual Legislator Recall Mechanism:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If No:
Verification of Absence: [Multiple source confirmation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and legal citation]
```

##### 4.3.1.5 Distortions to Recall Process Verification
- Verify existence of veto powers over citizen-initiated recall referendums
- Confirm time limits for collecting signatures
- Verify high signature thresholds (>10% of voters)
- Check for judicial review barriers
- Confirm classification and appropriate penalty application

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. For veto powers:
   - Identify constitutional/legal provisions
   - Verify historical use within last 100 years

2. For time limits:
   - Verify exact time period in legislation
   - Classify according to DFI categories

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Veto Powers:
Exist in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Historical Use in Last 100 Years: [Yes/No with evidence]
Impact Applied: [Full/Half]

Time for Signature Collection:
Legal Time Limit: [Number of days]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [<30 days/30-60 days/60-100 days/>100 days]

High Signature Threshold:
Threshold Percentage: [X%]
Classification: [>10% of voters/Not applicable]

Judicial Review:
Post-Signature Collection Review: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Penalties Applied:
- [List specific penalties with calculations]
```

#### 4.3.2 Abrogative Processes Verification

##### 4.3.2.1 Citizen-initiated Referendum with Power to Repeal a Law
- Verify existence of citizen-initiated abrogative referendum mechanism
- Independently calculate signature requirements against population
- Verify electronic/paper signature requirements
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Abrogative referendum provisions (from constitution and relevant laws)
   - Required signatures (with exact citation)
   - Country population (from verified sources)

2. Calculate signature percentage:
   - Required signatures ÷ Total population = X%

3. Classify according to country size:
   - Small Countries (<10 million): Low (<1.5%), Medium (1.5-3%), High (>3%)
   - Medium Countries (10-50 million): Low (<0.75%), Medium (0.75-1.5%), High (>1.5%)
   - Large Countries (>50 million): Low (<0.4%), Medium (0.4-0.8%), High (>0.8%)

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Abrogative Referendum Mechanism:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Yes:
Required Signatures: [Number]
Population: [Number]
Signature Percentage: [X%]
Country Size Category: [Small/Medium/Large]

Signature Method:
Electronic Signatures Allowed: [Yes/No]
Paper Signatures Required: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Classification: [Low/Medium/High Threshold]
Multiplier: [100%/75%]

If No:
Verification of Absence: [Multiple source confirmation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and legal citation]
```

##### 4.3.2.2 Citizens' Assembly with Power to Repeal a Law
- Verify existence of citizens' assembly with abrogative powers
- If exists, apply same verification procedure as citizen-initiated referendum

##### 4.3.2.3 Referendum and Citizens' Assembly with Power to Repeal a Law
- Verify existence of combined referendum and citizens' assembly with abrogative powers
- If exists, apply same verification procedure as citizen-initiated referendum

##### 4.3.2.4 Distortions to Abrogative Processes
- Apply same verification procedure as distortions to recall process

#### 4.3.3 Freedom of Information Laws Verification

##### 4.3.3.1 Scope Verification
- Verify coverage of different entities:
  - Public bodies and state institutions
  - Legislative branch
  - State-owned enterprises
  - Private bodies executing public functions
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Freedom of Information Law:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Primary Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Public Bodies Coverage:
Covered Entities: [Description]
Exclusions: [Listed exclusions]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Full coverage/Up to 3 minor exclusions/Key institutions excluded]

Legislative Branch Coverage:
Covered Documents: [Description]
Exclusions: [Listed exclusions]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [All documents/Substantial working documents/Only basic documents/No transparency]

State-Owned Enterprises:
Coverage Threshold: [Percentage state ownership]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [>50% owned/Only >75% owned/Limited coverage]

Private Bodies Executing Public Functions:
Coverage Criteria: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [All entities/Only >50% public funding/No coverage]

Evidence Source: [FOI law citation]
```

##### 4.3.3.2 Practical Accessibility Verification

**Response Time**
- Verify legal time limits for responding to information requests
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Response Time Requirement:
Standard Time Limit: [Number of days]
Extension Provisions: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Under 10 days/11-20 days/21-30 days/Over 30 days]

Evidence Source: [FOI law citation]
```

**Cost Structure**
- Verify cost provisions for digital and paper access
- Independently calculate paper costs against minimum wage
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Digital access cost provisions (from FOI law)
   - Paper copy cost provisions (from FOI law or regulations)
   - Hourly minimum wage (from labor ministry or statistical office)

2. Calculate paper costs as percentage of hourly minimum wage:
   - Cost per page ÷ Hourly minimum wage × 100 = X% of hourly minimum wage

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Digital Format Cost:
Cost Structure: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Free/Paid]

Paper Format Cost:
Cost per Page: [Amount]
Hourly Minimum Wage: [Amount]
Percentage Calculation: [X% of hourly minimum wage]
Classification: [≤0.1%/0.1-0.5%/>0.5%]

Evidence Source: [FOI law citation]
```

**Format Requirements**
- Verify digital format requirements
- Check machine readability provisions
- Verify format accessibility options
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Basic Format Requirements:
Digital Format Provisions: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Mandatory/Recommended/No requirements]

Machine Readability:
Machine-Readable Format Provisions: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Mandatory/Optional/No option]

Format Accessibility:
Available Format Options: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Multiple options/Single format]

Evidence Source: [FOI law citation]
```

##### 4.3.3.3 Enforcement Verification
- Verify existence of dedicated oversight body
- Check independence level
- Verify enforcement powers
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Dedicated Oversight Body:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Body Name: [Name]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Yes:
Independence Level:
Budget Arrangements: [Description]
Appointment Process: [Description]
Term of Office: [Description]
Classification: [Full independence/Partial independence/Under government control]

Powers:
Order-Issuing Authority: [Description]
Penalty Authority: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Binding orders with penalties/Binding orders without penalties/Recommendations only/No real powers]

If No:
Alternative Enforcement Mechanism: [Description]

Evidence Source: [FOI law citation]
```

#### 4.3.4 Independent Accountability Institution Bonus Verification

- Verify existence of institution with required characteristics
- Assess all four qualification criteria
- Determine binding or non-binding remedial powers
- Verify classification for bonus application

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Research potential institutions:
   - Ombudsman/Public Protector
   - Anti-corruption agencies
   - Public integrity commissions
   - Special investigative bodies

2. For each potential qualifying institution, assess:
   - Investigative authority over elected officials
   - Remedial powers (binding or non-binding)
   - Citizen accessibility
   - Institutional independence

3. For investigative authority:
   - Distinguish between rights protection and misconduct investigation
   - Verify explicit authority over highest officials

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Institution Assessment:
Institution Name: [Name]
Primary Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

1. Investigative Authority:
Scope of Authority: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Authority over Highest Officials: [Yes/No with specific provision]
Focus Assessment: [Rights protection/Misconduct investigation]
Evidence of Application: [Example cases]

2. Remedial Powers:
Nature of Powers: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Binding Status: [Binding/Non-binding]
Evidence of Implementation: [Example cases]

3. Citizen Accessibility:
Direct Complaint Mechanism: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Accessibility Barriers: [Any significant barriers]

4. Institutional Independence:
Appointment Mechanism: [Description]
Term of Office: [Description]
Removal Protections: [Description]
Budgetary Arrangements: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Bonus Qualification Determination:
Qualifies for 20% Bonus: [Yes/No]
Qualifies for 10% Bonus: [Yes/No]
Does Not Qualify: [Yes/No]
Justification: [Explanation based on criteria assessment]

Evidence Sources: [Constitutional and legal citations]
```

### 4.4 Parliamentary Legislative Initiative Verification

#### 4.4.1 Signature Collection Period Verification
- Verify legal time period for collecting signatures
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Signature Collection Period:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Time Period: [Number of months]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [≥9 months/6-9 months/<6 months]

Evidence Source: [Legislative initiative law citation]
```

#### 4.4.2 Signature Requirements Verification
- Verify signature threshold for initiative submission
- Independently calculate signature percentage against population
- Verify electronic/paper signature requirements
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Required signatures (from legislative initiative law)
   - Country population (from verified sources)

2. Calculate signature percentage:
   - Required signatures ÷ Total population = X%

3. Classify according to country size:
   - Small Countries (<10 million): Low (<0.75%), Medium (0.75-1.5%), High (>1.5%)
   - Medium Countries (10-50 million): Low (<0.5%), Medium (0.5-1%), High (>1%)
   - Large Countries (>50 million): Low (<0.25%), Medium (0.25-0.5%), High (>0.5%)

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Signature Requirement:
Required Signatures: [Number]
Population: [Number]
Signature Percentage: [X%]
Country Size Category: [Small/Medium/Large]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Signature Method:
Electronic Signatures Allowed: [Yes/No]
Paper Signatures Required: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Classification: [Low/Medium/High Threshold]
Multiplier: [100%/75%]

Evidence Source: [Legislative initiative law citation]
```

#### 4.4.3 Timeline for Initial Consideration Verification
- Verify legal deadline for first reading of citizen initiatives
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Initial Consideration Timeline:
First Reading Deadline: [Time period]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Within 3 months/Within 6 months/No fixed timeline]

Evidence Source: [Legislative initiative law citation]
```

#### 4.4.4 Initiative Continuity Verification
- Verify provisions for carrying initiatives across parliamentary terms
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Initiative Continuity:
Provision for Carrying Forward: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Carries forward/Lapses]

Evidence Source: [Legislative initiative law citation]
```

### 4.5 Referenda Verification

#### 4.5.1 Legislative Referendum Verification

##### 4.5.1.1 Legal Effect Verification
- Verify binding or consultative nature of referendum results
- Check turnout requirements for binding effect
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Legal Effect:
Binding Status: [Binding/Consultative]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Binding:
Turnout Requirement: [Percentage]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Reasonable (≤50%)/High (>50%)]

If Consultative:
Implementation Requirements: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Classification: [Binding with reasonable turnout/Binding with high turnout/Consultative/No referendum rights]

Evidence Source: [Referendum law citation]
```

##### 4.5.1.2 Signature Requirements Verification
- Verify signature threshold for referendum initiation
- Independently calculate signature percentage against population
- Verify electronic/paper signature requirements
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Calculation Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Required signatures (from referendum law)
   - Country population (from verified sources)

2. Calculate signature percentage:
   - Required signatures ÷ Total population = X%

3. Classify according to country size:
   - Small Countries (<10 million): Low (<1.5%), Medium (1.5-3%), High (>3%)
   - Medium Countries (10-50 million): Low (<0.75%), Medium (0.75-1.5%), High (>1.5%)
   - Large Countries (>50 million): Low (<0.4%), Medium (0.4-0.8%), High (>0.8%)

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Signature Requirement:
Required Signatures: [Number]
Population: [Number]
Signature Percentage: [X%]
Country Size Category: [Small/Medium/Large]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Signature Method:
Electronic Signatures Allowed: [Yes/No]
Paper Signatures Required: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Classification: [Low/Medium/High Threshold]
Multiplier: [100%/75%]

Evidence Source: [Referendum law citation]
```

##### 4.5.1.3 Majority Requirements Verification
- Verify specific majority requirements for referendum passage
- Check participation quorums, approval quorums, or negative thresholds
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Majority Requirements:
Simple Majority Requirement: [Yes/No]
Participation Quorum: [Percentage/None]
Approval Quorum: [Percentage/None]
Negative Threshold: [Percentage/None]
Double Majority: [Yes/No with description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Classification: [Simple majority/Participation quorum ≥50%/Participation quorum 30-40%/Negative threshold/Combined requirements/Double majority]
Multiplier: [100%/50%/70%/80%/50%/100%]

Evidence Source: [Referendum law citation]
```

##### 4.5.1.4 Distortions to Referendum Process Verification
- Verify existence of veto powers over citizen-initiated referendums
- Check signature collection time limitations
- Verify high signature thresholds (>10% of voters)
- Check for judicial review barriers
- Confirm classification and appropriate penalty application

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. For veto powers:
   - Identify constitutional/legal provisions
   - Verify historical use within last 100 years

2. For time limits:
   - Verify exact time period in legislation
   - Classify according to DFI categories

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Veto Powers:
Exist in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Historical Use in Last 100 Years: [Yes/No with evidence]
Impact Applied: [Full/Half]

Time for Signature Collection:
Legal Time Limit: [Number of days]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [<60 days/60-120 days/120-180 days/>180 days]

High Signature Threshold:
Threshold Percentage: [X%]
Classification: [>10% of voters/Not applicable]

Judicial Review:
Post-Signature Collection Review: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Penalties Applied:
- [List specific penalties with calculations]

Evidence Source: [Referendum law citation]
```

#### 4.5.2 Policy Issue Referendum Verification
- Apply same verification procedures as Legislative Referendum

### 4.6 Citizens' Assemblies Verification

#### 4.6.1 Legislative Citizens' Assemblies Verification

##### 4.6.1.1 Legal Effect Verification
- Verify existence of citizens' assemblies with legislative functions
- Check binding or consultative nature
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Legislative Citizens' Assembly:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Yes:
Legal Effect:
Binding Status: [Binding/Consultative]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Binding/Consultative]

If No:
Verification of Absence: [Multiple source confirmation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and legal citations]
```

##### 4.6.1.2 Signature Requirements Verification
- If legislative citizens' assemblies exist, apply same verification procedure as referenda

##### 4.6.1.3 Distortions Verification
- If legislative citizens' assemblies exist, apply same verification procedure as referenda

#### 4.6.2 Policy Issue Citizens' Assemblies Verification
- Apply same verification procedures as Legislative Citizens' Assemblies

#### 4.6.3 Government-Initiated National-Level Citizens' Assemblies Verification

- Verify existence of government-initiated citizens' assemblies at national level
- Verify initiating authority must be national-level government
- Confirm national scope of assemblies (not local/regional)
- Verify nationwide participant selection
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Conduct comprehensive research across multiple sources:
   - Official government websites and announcements
   - Deliberative democracy platforms (Participedia, etc.)
   - Academic research and publications
   - News sources in local languages
   - Civil society organization reports

2. For each identified assembly, verify:
   - Official status (government-initiated)
   - National-level authority (not municipal/regional)
   - National scope of issues addressed
   - Nationwide participant selection

3. Count number of qualifying assemblies held

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Government-Initiated Citizens' Assembly Assessment:
Qualifying National-Level Assemblies: [Number/None]

For Each Assembly:
Name: [Official name]
Date Conducted: [Month/Year]
Initiating Authority: [Specific government entity]
Geographic Scope: [National/Regional/Local]
Participant Selection: [Nationwide/Regional/Local]
Issues Addressed: [National policy/Regional concerns/Local matters]

Primary Source: [Official government documentation with URL]
Secondary Source: [Independent verification with URL]

Determination: [Qualifies/Does not qualify]
Rationale: [Specific justification for qualification decision]

If No Qualifying Assemblies:
Verification of Absence: [Multiple source confirmation]
Local-Only Assemblies: [Description if applicable]

Classification: [1 instance = 1%/2+ instances = 3%/None = 0%]

Evidence Sources: [List of all sources consulted]
```

#### 4.6.4 System Design Features Verification

##### 4.6.4.1 Randomly Selected Citizens' Body for Agenda Setting
- Verify existence of independent citizen body for agenda setting
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Agenda-Setting Body:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Composition: [Description]
Powers: [Description]
Classification: [Independent citizen body/No citizens' body]
Multiplier: [100%/95%]

Evidence Source: [Legal citation or official documentation]
```

##### 4.6.4.2 Independent Coordination of Citizens' Assemblies
- Verify independence of coordinating team
- Check for political influence possibilities
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Coordination Independence:
Coordinating Body: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Independence Safeguards: [Description]
Political Influence Possibilities: [Description]
Classification: [Independent/Political influence possible]
Multiplier: [100%/75%]

Evidence Source: [Legal citation or official documentation]
```

### 4.7 Safeguards Verification

#### 4.7.1 Appointment of Judges Verification
- Verify mechanism for judicial appointments
- Check appointment authority and process
- Confirm classification against DFI model categories

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Judicial appointment provisions (from constitution and relevant laws)
   - Appointing authorities
   - Professional requirements
   - Involvement of different bodies in the process

2. Match to specific DFI model:
   - Political Appointment Model
   - Independent Commission Model
   - Career Judiciary Model
   - Mixed System Model
   - Parliamentary Model
   - Citizens' Assembly with Expert Commission
   - Bar Examination Model

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Judicial Appointment System:
Appointing Authority: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Role of Different Bodies:
- Political Bodies: [Description]
- Judicial Bodies: [Description]
- Professional Bodies: [Description]
- Civil Society: [Description]

Selection Process: [Description]
Professional Requirements: [Description]

Classification: [Specific DFI model]
Points: [Number according to model]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and legal citations]
```

#### 4.7.2 Media Control Bodies Verification
- Verify mechanism for appointing media regulatory authorities
- Check appointment authority and process
- Confirm classification against DFI model categories

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Media regulatory body provisions (from media laws)
   - Appointing authorities
   - Composition and terms of office
   - Independence safeguards

2. Match to specific DFI model:
   - Executive Appointment Model
   - Parliamentary Model
   - Professional Community Model
   - Mixed Stakeholder Model
   - Judicial Oversight Model
   - Independent Commission Model
   - Statutory Public Corporation Model
   - Citizens' Assembly Model

3. For dual systems (public/private), calculate average of both models

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Media Regulatory Body:
Body Name: [Name]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Appointing Authority: [Description]
Composition: [Description]
Term of Office: [Description]
Independence Safeguards: [Description]

For Dual Systems:
Public Media Governance:
- Model: [Specific DFI model]
- Points: [Number]

Private Media Regulation:
- Model: [Specific DFI model]
- Points: [Number]

Average Score: [Calculation]

Classification: [Specific DFI model or Dual System average]
Points: [Number according to model]

Evidence Source: [Media law citations]
```

#### 4.7.3 Electoral Commission Verification
- Verify mechanism for appointing electoral commission members
- Check appointment authority and process
- For countries without electoral commissions, verify alternative mechanisms
- Confirm classification against DFI model categories

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Electoral commission provisions (from electoral laws)
   - Appointing authorities
   - Composition and terms of office
   - Independence safeguards

2. Match to specific DFI model:
   - Executive Appointment Model
   - Parliamentary Model
   - Judicial Leadership Model
   - Multi-Party Consensus Model
   - Professional Civil Service Model
   - Independent Commission Model
   - Parliamentary Supermajority Model
   - Citizens' Assembly Model
   - Judicial-Executive Hybrid
   - International Oversight Model
   - Technocratic Model

3. For countries without formal commissions, identify alternative model:
   - Ministry-Led Electoral Administration
   - Judiciary-Led Electoral Administration
   - Decentralized Local Government Administration
   - Civil Service Administrative System
   - Multi-Stakeholder Council
   - Legislative Branch Administration
   - Political Party Consensus Administration
   - International/External Administration

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Electoral Management System:
Formal Electoral Commission: [Yes/No]
Body Name: [Name]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Yes:
Appointing Authority: [Description]
Composition: [Description]
Term of Office: [Description]
Independence Safeguards: [Description]
Classification: [Specific DFI model]

If No:
Alternative Management: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Specific alternative model]

Points: [Number according to model]

Evidence Source: [Electoral law citations]
```

#### 4.7.4 Prosecutor General Verification
- Verify mechanism for appointing Prosecutor General
- Check appointment authority and process
- Confirm classification against DFI model categories

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Prosecutor General appointment provisions (from relevant laws)
   - Appointing authorities
   - Term of office and removal provisions
   - Independence safeguards

2. Match to specific DFI model:
   - Executive Appointment with Legislative Confirmation
   - Independent Council Selection
   - Mixed System
   - Professional Body Selection
   - Multi-stakeholder Model
   - Citizens' Assembly with Expert Commission
   - Direct Parliamentary Selection
   - Judicial Appointment Model

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Prosecutor General Appointment:
Appointing Authority: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Term of Office: [Description]
Removal Provisions: [Description]
Independence Safeguards: [Description]

Classification: [Specific DFI model]
Points: [Number according to model]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and legal citations]
```

#### 4.7.5 Constitutional Court Members Verification

##### 4.7.5.1 Nomination Verification
- Verify mechanism for nominating Constitutional Court members
- Check nominating authorities
- Confirm classification against DFI model categories

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Constitutional Court nomination provisions (from constitution and relevant laws)
   - Nominating authorities
   - Nomination requirements

2. Match to specific DFI model:
   - Open Public Nominations
   - Professional Body Nominations
   - Multi-Source Nomination System
   - Citizens' Assembly Nomination
   - Political Body Nominations
   - Judicial Self-Nomination
   - Academic Institution Nominations
   - Mixed Professional-Political Nominations

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Constitutional Court Nomination:
Nominating Authorities: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Nomination Requirements: [Description]

Classification: [Specific DFI model]
Points: [Number according to model]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and legal citations]
```

##### 4.7.5.2 Selection Verification
- Verify mechanism for selecting Constitutional Court members
- Check selecting authorities
- Confirm classification against DFI model categories

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Constitutional Court selection provisions (from constitution and relevant laws)
   - Selecting authorities
   - Selection process

2. Match to specific DFI model:
   - Direct Citizen Election
   - Citizens' Assembly Selection
   - Multi-Stakeholder Selection
   - Parliamentary Selection with Professional Screening
   - Executive Appointment with Voter Retention Elections
   - Legislative Confirmation after Executive Nomination
   - Multi-Stakeholder Commission with Public Transparency
   - Professional-Led Selection Panel
   - Single-Body Political Selection
   - Judicial Council Selection

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Constitutional Court Selection:
Selecting Authority: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Selection Process: [Description]

Classification: [Specific DFI model]
Points: [Number according to model]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional and legal citations]
```

#### 4.7.6 Election Results Validation Verification
- Verify mechanism for validating election results
- Check authority and process
- Confirm classification against DFI model categories

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Election results validation provisions (from electoral laws)
   - Validating authority
   - Validation process
   - Dispute resolution mechanisms

2. Match to specific DFI model:
   - Supreme/Constitutional Court Model
   - Specialized Electoral Court Model
   - Electoral Commission Model
   - Parliamentary Validation Model
   - Multi-Institution Model
   - Decentralized Model
   - Citizens' Assembly Model

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Election Results Validation:
Validating Authority: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Validation Process: [Description]
Dispute Resolution: [Description]

Classification: [Specific DFI model]
Points: [Number according to model]

Evidence Source: [Electoral law citations]
```

### 4.8 Constitutional Amendment Verification

#### 4.8.1 Initiation Methods Verification

##### 4.8.1.1 Citizen-Initiated Verification
- Verify existence of citizen-initiated constitutional amendment mechanism
- Independently calculate signature requirements against population
- Verify electronic/paper signature requirements
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Calculation Required:**
Same as for other citizen-initiated mechanisms

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendment:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Yes:
Required Signatures: [Number]
Population: [Number]
Signature Percentage: [X%]
Country Size Category: [Small/Medium/Large]

Signature Method:
Electronic Signatures Allowed: [Yes/No]
Paper Signatures Required: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Classification: [Low/Medium/High Threshold]
Multiplier: [100%/75%]

If No:
Verification of Absence: [Multiple source confirmation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional citations]
```

##### 4.8.1.2 Parliamentary-Initiated Verification
- Verify mechanism for parliamentary initiation of constitutional amendments
- Check required majorities
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Parliamentary-Initiated Constitutional Amendment:
Requirement: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Simple majority in single chamber/Supermajority in single chamber/Supermajority in both chambers]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional citations]
```

##### 4.8.1.3 Executive-Initiated Verification
- Verify mechanism for executive initiation of constitutional amendments
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Executive-Initiated Constitutional Amendment:
Authority: [Elected/Unelected executive]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Classification: [Elected executive/Unelected executive]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional citations]
```

##### 4.8.1.4 Federal/Regional Unit-Initiated Verification
- Verify mechanism for federal/regional initiation of constitutional amendments
- Check if units are directly elected or appointed
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Federal/Regional-Initiated Constitutional Amendment:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Yes:
Required Units: [Number/Percentage]
Selection of Regional Bodies: [Directly elected/Appointed]
Classification: [Majority of directly elected/Majority of appointed]

If No:
Verification of Absence: [Multiple source confirmation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional citations]
```

##### 4.8.1.5 Preliminary Referendum-Initiated Verification
- Verify mechanism for referendum initiation of constitutional amendments
- Check who can call the preliminary referendum
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Preliminary Referendum-Initiated Constitutional Amendment:
Exists in Legal Framework: [Yes/No]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

If Yes:
Initiating Authority: [Citizens/Parliament/Executive]
Required Signatures (if citizen-initiated): [Number/Percentage]
Classification: [Citizen-Initiated/Parliamentary-Initiated/Executive-Initiated]

If No:
Verification of Absence: [Multiple source confirmation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional citations]
```

#### 4.8.2 Process Type Verification
- Verify constitutional amendment process type
- Check which bodies are involved in drafting and deliberation
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Constitutional amendment process provisions (from constitution)
   - Bodies involved in drafting and deliberation
   - Special mechanisms or requirements

2. Match to specific DFI model:
   - Parliamentary Process
   - Constitutional Convention/Assembly
   - Citizens' Assembly Process
   - Expert Commission Process
   - Hybrid/Multi-Stage Process
   - Direct Democracy Process

3. For countries with multiple available processes, calculate average score

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Constitutional Amendment Process:
Process Description: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Primary Drafting Body: [Description]
Deliberation Process: [Description]

Classification: [Specific DFI model]
Points: [Percentage according to model]

For Multiple Available Processes:
Process 1: [Model], [Percentage]
Process 2: [Model], [Percentage]
Average Score: [Calculation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional citations]
```

#### 4.8.3 Approval Mechanisms Verification
- Verify constitutional amendment approval mechanisms
- Check required majorities, referendums, or other requirements
- Confirm classification against DFI criteria

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. Obtain official data on:
   - Constitutional amendment approval provisions (from constitution)
   - Required majorities
   - Referendum requirements
   - Cooling periods or multiple votes

2. Match to specific DFI model from all categories:
   - Direct Citizen Approval (various referendum types)
   - Mixed Representative-Direct Approval
   - Representative Approval with Cooling Period
   - Unicameral Parliamentary Approval
   - Bicameral Parliamentary Approval
   - Federal System Approval

3. For countries with multiple available approval mechanisms, calculate average score

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Constitutional Amendment Approval:
Approval Mechanism: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]
Required Majorities: [Description]
Referendum Requirements: [Description]
Cooling Period/Multiple Votes: [Description]

Classification: [Specific DFI model]
Points: [Percentage according to model]

For Multiple Available Mechanisms:
Mechanism 1: [Model], [Percentage]
Mechanism 2: [Model], [Percentage]
Average Score: [Calculation]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional citations]
```

#### 4.8.4 Distortions to Democratic Process Verification
- Verify existence of veto powers over constitutional amendments:
  - Monarch's veto
  - Religious authorities' veto
  - Military veto
  - Unelected body veto
- Check for eternity clauses protecting elite privileges or anti-democratic structures
- Verify historical use of veto powers
- Confirm classification and appropriate penalty application

**Independent Verification Required:**
1. For each potential veto power:
   - Identify constitutional/legal provisions
   - Verify historical use within last 100 years

2. For eternity clauses:
   - Identify specific provisions that cannot be amended
   - Assess whether they protect elite privileges or anti-democratic structures

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Distortion Mechanism: [Specific mechanism]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Constitutional/Legal Powers:
- [Description of specific powers]
- [Limitations on powers]

Historical Usage (Last 100 Years):
- [Documented instances with dates]
- [Sources confirming usage]

Impact Determination:
- Full Impact Applied: [Yes/No]
- Half Impact Applied: [Yes/No]
- Justification: [Explanation based on historical usage]

Classification: [Specific distortion category]

Penalty Applied: [Yes/No]
Penalty Calculation: [Mathematical application]

Evidence Source: [Constitutional citations]
```

## 5. Verification of Absent Mechanisms

When DFI research indicates a democratic mechanism is absent, verify through:

### 5.1 Multiple Source Confirmation
- Verify absence through at least three independent sources:
  - Constitutional and legal texts
  - Academic publications
  - Expert opinions
  - Government statements

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Absent Mechanism: [Specific mechanism]

Constitutional/Legal Verification:
- Documents Reviewed: [List]
- Confirmation of Absence: [Specific citations/quotes]

Secondary Source Verification:
- Academic Sources: [Citations]
- Expert Opinions: [Citations]
- Government Statements: [Citations]

Verification of Similar Mechanisms:
- Search for Functional Equivalents: [Description]
- Different Terminology Check: [Description]

Conclusion: [Confirmation of absence with multiple evidence]
```

### 5.2 Historical Context Verification
- Check whether mechanism previously existed
- Document when and why it was removed (if applicable)

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Historical Context:
Previous Existence: [Yes/No]
If Yes:
- Time Period: [Years]
- Legal Basis: [Citation]
- Reason for Removal: [Description]
- Sources: [Citations]
```

### 5.3 Similar Mechanism Verification
- Check for functionally similar mechanisms under different names
- Verify whether they qualify for DFI classification

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Potential Similar Mechanisms:
Mechanism 1: [Description]
- Legal Basis: [Citation]
- Functional Analysis: [Description]
- DFI Qualification Assessment: [Yes/No with explanation]

Mechanism 2: [Description]
- Legal Basis: [Citation]
- Functional Analysis: [Description]
- DFI Qualification Assessment: [Yes/No with explanation]

Final Determination: [Confirmation of absence/Identification of qualifying equivalent]
```

## 6. Penalty Verification

### 6.1 Category-Wide Penalties
- Verify existence of distortions that apply penalties to entire categories
- Confirm correct legal basis
- Verify historical usage for half-impact determination
- Verify mathematical application of penalties

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Category-Wide Penalty:
Category Affected: [Category name]
Distortion Mechanism: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Historical Usage (Last 100 Years):
- [Documented instances with dates]
- [Sources confirming usage]

Impact Determination:
- Full Impact (-100%): [Yes/No]
- Half Impact (-50%): [Yes/No]
- Justification: [Explanation based on historical usage]

Mathematical Application:
- Original Category Score: [Percentage]
- Penalty Applied: [Percentage]
- Final Category Score: [Calculation]

Evidence Source: [Citations]
```

### 6.2 Component-Specific Penalties
- Verify existence of distortions that apply penalties to specific components
- Confirm correct legal basis
- Verify mathematical application of penalties

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Component-Specific Penalty:
Component Affected: [Component name]
Distortion Mechanism: [Description]
Legal Basis: [Exact citation]

Mathematical Application:
- Original Component Score: [Percentage]
- Penalty Applied: [Percentage]
- Final Component Score: [Calculation]
- Impact on Category Score: [Calculation]

Evidence Source: [Citations]
```

### 6.3 Multiple Penalty Application Verification
- Verify correct application when multiple penalties apply to same category
- Confirm mathematical calculation maintains non-negative scores

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Multiple Penalty Application:
Category Affected: [Category name]
Original Category Score: [Percentage]

Penalty 1:
- Mechanism: [Description]
- Impact: [Percentage]

Penalty 2:
- Mechanism: [Description]
- Impact: [Percentage]

[Additional penalties as applicable]

Final Calculation:
- Combined Penalty: [Calculation]
- Final Category Score: [Calculation]
- Floor Application: [Yes/No]

Evidence Source: [Citations]
```

## 7. Cross-Verification Methods

### 7.1 Comparative Consistency Checks
- Compare classifications of similar countries with comparable institutions
- Verify consistent application of criteria across regions
- Identify regional patterns for context

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Comparative Consistency Check:
Mechanism: [Specific mechanism]
Country Classification: [Classification]

Comparable Countries:
Country 1: [Name], [Classification], [Key similarities]
Country 2: [Name], [Classification], [Key similarities]
[Additional countries as applicable]

Consistency Assessment:
- Consistent Application: [Yes/No]
- If No, Explanation: [Justification for differences]

Evidence Source: [Citations]
```

### 7.2 Contentious Classification Resolution
- Document and resolve classifications where multiple interpretations are possible
- Consider scholarly opinions supporting different interpretations
- Identify most precise match to DFI criteria language

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Contentious Classification:
Mechanism: [Specific mechanism]
Competing Classifications:
- Option 1: [Classification], [Justification]
- Option 2: [Classification], [Justification]
[Additional options as applicable]

Scholarly Opinions:
- Opinion 1: [Citation], [Argument]
- Opinion 2: [Citation], [Argument]
[Additional opinions as applicable]

DFI Criteria Analysis:
- Criteria Language: [Exact DFI language]
- Match Assessment: [Analysis of match to each option]

Resolution:
- Final Classification: [Classification]
- Justification: [Detailed explanation]

Evidence Source: [Citations]
```

## 8. Special Methodological Cases

### 8.1 Structural Disproportionality vs. Intentional Gerrymandering

The DFI v3.1 framework treats these as two independent assessments scored under §1.3 and §1.4 respectively:

- **§1.3 Electoral disproportionality** measures the mathematical vote-to-seat translation gap (Gallagher Index). It is a property of the electoral system itself and applies regardless of how district boundaries were drawn.
- **§1.4 Intentional gerrymandering** measures whether the currently-in-force boundaries were drawn with documented partisan or racial-discriminatory intent (Strong evidence Types A/B/C).

The two penalties apply independently. A country may show high disproportionality without intent (UK 2024 — Severe Gallagher 23.7, no Type A/B/C evidence), low disproportionality with intent (USA House 2024 — Minimal Gallagher 1.9 + Texas LULAC ruling), or both/neither.

Verifiers should:
- Confirm the Gallagher computation per §4.2.6 above (mathematical outcome assessment)
- Independently search for Strong-evidence Types A/B/C for the intent assessment per §4.2.6 above
- Confirm the two classifications and penalties are reported separately in the YAML

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Electoral Disproportionality (§1.3):
Gallagher Index: [Value, 1 decimal] → [Minimal / Limited / Severe]
Per-chamber penalty: [-25% / -50% / -100% / None]

Intentional Gerrymandering (§1.4):
Boundary-drawing authority: [Body, statutory framework]
Strong evidence (Type A/B/C): [Findings, citations]
Classification: [Not applicable / Not present / Present]
Per-chamber penalty: [-50% / -100% / None]

Evidence Source: [Citations]
```

### 8.2 Federal and Multi-Level Governance Systems
- Verify correct level of analysis (federal vs. subfederal)
- Confirm appropriate treatment of territorial units vs. drawn districts
- Verify proper handling of bicameral systems with territorial representation

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Federal System Assessment:
Governance Levels: [Description]
Analysis Level Applied: [Federal only/Including subfederal]
Justification: [Explanation]

Territorial Units:
Fixed Territorial Units: [Description]
Drawn Districts: [Description]
Treatment in Analysis: [Explanation]

Bicameral System:
Upper House Basis: [Territorial/Elected]
Treatment in Analysis: [Explanation]

Evidence Source: [Citations]
```

### 8.3 Mixed and Hybrid Systems
- Verify correct component-wise classification
- Check proportional calculations for partial applicability
- Verify weight redistribution for non-applicable components

**Verification Documentation Required:**
```
Mixed/Hybrid System:
System Components:
- Component 1: [Description], [Classification]
- Component 2: [Description], [Classification]
[Additional components as applicable]

Proportional Calculations:
- Component 1 Weight: [Percentage]
- Component 2 Weight: [Percentage]
[Additional components as applicable]

For Non-Applicable Components:
Weight Redistribution: [Calculation]

Final Weighted Score: [Calculation]

Evidence Source: [Citations]
```

## 9. Verification Documentation Requirements

### 9.1 Independent Calculation Verification Form

For all quantitative calculations, use this standardized form:

```
INDEPENDENT CALCULATION VERIFICATION

Original Research Claim: [The calculation result claimed in research report]

Data Sources:
- Primary Source: [Source name, URL, date]
- Secondary Source: [Source name, URL, date]
- Additional Sources: [List as needed]

Calculation Methodology:
1. [Step-by-step replication of the calculation]
2. [Formula/approach used]
3. [Variables and their values]
4. [Detailed computation]

Result:
- Original Claim: [Value]
- Independent Verification: [Value]
- Discrepancy: [Value or percentage]

Discrepancy Analysis:
[Explanation of any differences found]

Classification Impact:
- Original Classification: [Category]
- Verified Classification: [Category]
- Change Required: [Yes/No]

Final Determination:
[Confirmed/Adjusted classification with justification]
```

### 9.2 Verification Summary Form

For each DFI category, complete a verification summary:

```
CATEGORY VERIFICATION SUMMARY

Category: [Category name]
Verification Date: [Date]
Verifier: [Name]

Components Verified:
1. [Component name]: [Verification outcome]
2. [Component name]: [Verification outcome]
[Additional components as applicable]

Penalties Verified:
1. [Penalty description]: [Verification outcome]
2. [Penalty description]: [Verification outcome]
[Additional penalties as applicable]

Independent Calculations Performed:
1. [Calculation description]: [Outcome]
2. [Calculation description]: [Outcome]
[Additional calculations as applicable]

Classification Changes:
1. [Original classification] → [Verified classification]
2. [Original classification] → [Verified classification]
[Additional changes as applicable]

Score Impact:
- Original Category Score: [Percentage]
- Verified Category Score: [Percentage]
- Net Change: [Percentage]

Documentation Completeness:
[Assessment of documentation quality]

Methodological Challenges:
[Description of any verification challenges encountered]

Final Verification Status: [Complete/Pending/Requires further research]
```

## 10. Verification Issues Documentation

After completing verification, document any issues encountered:

### 10.1 Classification Challenges
- Note any institutional arrangements that don't clearly fit DFI categories
- Flag ambiguous cases where multiple interpretations are possible
- Document edge cases requiring special consideration

### 10.2 Data Gaps
- Identify information gaps where verification couldn't be completed
- Flag inconsistencies between multiple sources
- Note areas where additional verification would be beneficial

### 10.3 Special Cases
- Document unique institutional arrangements
- Record any country-specific contexts affecting classification
- Note any novel democratic mechanisms not fully captured by DFI framework

**Documentation Format:**
```
VERIFICATION IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Country: [Name]
Verification Date: [Date]

Methodological Challenges:
1. [Challenge description]
   - Affected Component: [Component name]
   - Resolution Approach: [Description]
   - Recommendation: [Specific suggestion]

2. [Challenge description]
   - Affected Component: [Component name]
   - Resolution Approach: [Description]
   - Recommendation: [Specific suggestion]

[Additional challenges as applicable]

Criteria Clarification Recommendations:
1. [Current criteria language]
   - Issue: [Description of ambiguity/problem]
   - Proposed Revision: [Suggested new language]
   - Justification: [Explanation]

2. [Current criteria language]
   - Issue: [Description of ambiguity/problem]
   - Proposed Revision: [Suggested new language]
   - Justification: [Explanation]

[Additional recommendations as applicable]

Novel Institutional Arrangements:
1. [Arrangement description]
   - Current Classification: [Category]
   - Proposed New Category: [Suggestion]
   - Comparative Examples: [Similar arrangements]

2. [Arrangement description]
   - Current Classification: [Category]
   - Proposed New Category: [Suggestion]
   - Comparative Examples: [Similar arrangements]

[Additional arrangements as applicable]
```

## 11. Artifacts and Templates

The following standardized artifacts and templates should be used for all DFI verifications:

### 11.1 Excel Calculation Templates
- Gallagher Index calculation spreadsheet (Electoral disproportionality §1.3)
- Signature percentage calculation template
- Population deviation calculation template
- Penalty application calculator

### 11.2 Verification Checklist Templates
- Core country information verification checklist
- Category-specific verification checklists
- Penalty verification checklist
- Documentation completeness checklist

### 11.3 Standardized Source Documentation
- Primary source citation template
- Constitutional provision documentation format
- Electoral data documentation format
- Expert opinion documentation format

These artifacts and templates ensure consistency and reproducibility across all DFI verifications.