# DFI Research Report - Formatting Guidelines

## 1. General Document Structure

### 1.1 Country Profile Header
Every research report must begin with a standardized country profile:

```
# DFI Research Report - [Country Name]

## Country Profile

**COUNTRY**: [Full official name]  
**CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM**: [Type - Presidential/Parliamentary/Semi-Presidential/etc.]  
**CURRENT CONSTITUTION**: [Year enacted (with amendments)]  
**POPULATION**: [Current figure with source]  
**COUNTRY SIZE CLASSIFICATION**: [Small (<10 million)/Medium (10-50 million)/Large (>50 million)]  
```

### 1.2 Category and Component Organization
- Use consistent hierarchical numbering matching the DFI framework (1-7 for main categories)
- Number components within categories (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, etc.)
- Include all components from the framework, even those not applicable

## 2. Component Documentation Format

### 2.1 Standard Component Format
```
## [Number]. [Category Name]

### [Number].[Number] [Component Name]

#### [Number].[Number].[Number] [Subcomponent Name] (if applicable)

**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Concise, factual description of the relevant mechanism or its absence]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Direct quote from constitutional/legal provision]"  
**SOURCE**: [Constitution/Law name], [Article/Section number], [enacted date], [URL if available]

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**: [Match to specific DFI framework classification without point values]
```

**IMPORTANT**: Never include numerical point values in the PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION section. Classifications should only match the descriptive categories from the DFI framework (e.g., "Binding with negative threshold" rather than "Binding with negative threshold (10 points)").

### 2.2 Format for Components with Calculations
```
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Factual description]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Direct quote]"  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**CALCULATION**:  
- [Parameter 1]: [Value]
- [Parameter 2]: [Value]
- [Calculation formula and steps shown explicitly]

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**: [Classification based on calculation result]
```

### 2.3 Format for Components with Multiple Legal Sources
```
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Factual description]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Direct quote from primary source]"  
**SOURCE**: [Primary source citation]

"[Direct quote from secondary source]"  
**SOURCE**: [Secondary source citation]

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**: [Classification]
```

## 3. Documentation of Absent Mechanisms

### 3.1 Standard Format for Absent Mechanisms
```
### [Number].[Number] [Component Name]

**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: No provisions exist for [mechanism] at the national level.

**VERIFICATION**: "A comprehensive review of the [country]'s constitution and relevant legislation confirms the absence of [specific mechanism]."  
**SOURCE**: [Constitution/Law name], [Articles/Sections reviewed], [enacted date], [URL if available]

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**: Not present in constitutional/legal framework
```

### 3.2 Format for Mechanisms Not Subject to Assessment
```
### [Number].[Number] [Component Name]

**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Description of why the mechanism is not applicable to this country]

**VERIFICATION**: "[Supporting evidence]"  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**: Not applicable ([reason - e.g., "proportional representation system"])
```

## 4. Citation and Source Standards

### 4.1 Citation Hierarchy
Follow this order of preference for sources:
1. Constitutional provisions
2. Organic laws or statutes governing relevant institutions
3. Regular legislation
4. Case law and judicial interpretations
5. Official government publications
6. Academic/expert analyses (only when necessary)

### 4.2 Citation Format
```
**SOURCE**: [Document name], [Article/Section number], [enacted/published date], [URL]
```

### 4.3 Direct Quotations
- Always include direct quotes from primary legal sources
- Quote the exact language establishing the mechanism
- Include original language version for non-English sources if relevant

## 5. Special Component Guidelines

### 5.1 Foreign Donation Loopholes Research
```
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Basic foreign donation rules]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Direct quote of foreign donation prohibition law]"  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**IDENTIFIED LOOPHOLES**:
1. [Specific loophole #1] - [Type of gap: Legal/Regulatory/Enforcement]
   "[Direct quote of relevant provision/opinion/case]"
   **SOURCE**: [Citation]

2. [Specific loophole #2] - [Type of gap]
   "[Direct quote of relevant provision/opinion/case]"
   **SOURCE**: [Citation]

**ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT**: [Description of enforcement agency, powers, and record]  
**SOURCE**: [Official documentation or expert assessment]

**DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES**: [Evidence of exploitation, if any]  
**SOURCE**: [Reports or investigations]

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**:
- Official Campaign Account: [Completely prohibited/Partially restricted/Allowed]
- Other Campaign Channels: [Completely prohibited/Partially restricted/Allowed]
- Loopholes: [Exist/Do not exist]
```

### 5.2 Electoral Disproportionality and Intentional Gerrymandering Assessment

The DFI v3.1 framework assesses these as two independent rows. Researchers complete both and report each result separately.

#### 5.2.1 Electoral Disproportionality (§1.3 — Gallagher Index)
```
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Electoral system description per chamber — FPTP / list-PR / mixed parallel / compensatory MMP / nationwide PR; chamber applicability for Gallagher]

**DATA COLLECTION**: [Source: electoral commission, election date, total valid votes, total seats]

**METHODOLOGY NOTES**:
- Vote-share basis: [PR-block / Zweitstimme / constituency vote — note default and any deviations such as satellite-party clause]
- Sub-1% handling: [aggregated as "Other" if combined ≤2%, else listed individually]
- Mixed-system handling (if applicable): [computed on chamber's final aggregate seat allocation per methodology 1.2]

**GALLAGHER INDEX CALCULATION**:
| Party | V% | S% | (V−S)² |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

Sum of (V−S)² = [Number]
÷ 2          = [Number]
√            = [Gallagher Index, 1 decimal]

**CLASSIFICATION**: [Minimal (<7) / Limited (7–15) / Severe (>15)]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Electoral system provisions]"
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**PROPOSED PER-CHAMBER PENALTY** (per Scoring Guidelines §1.3.5):
- Lower House: [Gallagher value, bracket, penalty]
- Upper House: [Gallagher value, bracket, penalty / Not applicable with reason]
- Asymmetric chamber pair: [if applicable, max-per-chamber-penalty result]
```

#### 5.2.2 Intentional Gerrymandering (§1.4 — Strong-Evidence Intent)
```
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**:
- Boundary-drawing authority: [Body, statutory framework]
- Currently-in-force map finalized: [Date]
- Per-chamber applicability: [Manipulable / Not applicable with reason]

**STRONG-EVIDENCE INVESTIGATION** (per chamber where boundaries are drawn):
- Type A — Court rulings: [findings, case citations, dates]
- Type B — Legislative-record evidence: [findings, sources]
- Type C — Public partisan-advantage statements: [findings, statements with sources and dates]
- Type D — Quantitative pattern (supporting only, requires corroboration): [if any noted]

**PRESENT-STATE VERIFICATION**:
- Court-stayed maps under appeal: [if applicable]
- Court-ordered remedial maps: [if applicable, classification = Not Present]
- Stacked nominally-independent commission: [if applicable]

**FEDERAL-AGGREGATE TREATMENT** (federal countries only):
- Per-state findings: [list state-level Type A/B/C evidence affecting the federal map]
- Aggregate classification: [based on highest-evidence per chamber]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Boundary-drawing statutory framework]"
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**:
- Lower House: [Not applicable / Not present / Present]
- Upper House: [Not applicable / Not present / Present]

**PROPOSED PENALTY** (per Scoring Guidelines §1.4.5):
- [Penalty amount with chamber scope]
```

### 5.3 Independent Accountability Institution Assessment
```
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Overview of institution]

#### 1. Investigative Authority
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Description of investigative powers]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Direct quote]"  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

#### 2. Remedial Powers
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Description of powers]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Direct quote]"  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**IMPLEMENTATION EVIDENCE**: [Examples of implementation]  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

#### 3. Citizen Accessibility
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Description of complaint mechanisms]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Direct quote]"  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**PROCEDURE**: [Description of how citizens file complaints]  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

#### 4. Institutional Independence
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Description of independence safeguards]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Direct quote]"  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**BUDGETARY ARRANGEMENTS**: [Description of budget independence]  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**: [Qualifies for 20% bonus (binding remedial powers)/
Qualifies for 10% bonus (non-binding remedial powers)/
Does not qualify due to [specific criterion failure]]
```

### 5.4 Citizens' Assembly Verification
```
**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: [Description of citizens' assembly status]

**LEGAL BASIS**: "[Direct quote]"  
**SOURCE**: [Citation]

**CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY VERIFICATION**:  
- Initiating authority: [Government body or "None"]
- Official documentation: [Founding document citation or "No founding documents"]
- Geographic scope: [National/Regional/Local]
- Participant selection: [Nationwide/Regional/Local AND Random/Non-random]
- Issues addressed: [National policy/Regional concerns/Local matters]
- Final determination: [Qualifies/Does not qualify as national-level]
- Reason: [Explicit justification for qualification decision]

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**: [Classification]
```

## 6. Formatting Standards

### 6.1 Text Formatting
- Use Markdown formatting consistently
- Bold all section headers (**RESEARCH FINDINGS**, **LEGAL BASIS**, etc.)
- Use bullet points for lists and calculations
- Indent subordinate points with proper hierarchy

### 6.2 Spacing
- Include a single line break after each major section
- Include two line breaks between components
- No line break between "**LEGAL BASIS**:" and the quoted text
- No line break between "**SOURCE**:" and the citation

### 6.3 Quotes and Citations
- Always enclose direct quotes in quotation marks
- Citations should immediately follow the quoted text
- Include complete source information in every citation

## 7. Quality Control Checklist

Before submitting a research report, verify:

- [ ] All components from DFI scoring framework have been researched
- [ ] Each component has direct quotes from primary sources for key features
- [ ] Country size classification is correctly determined
- [ ] All population-based thresholds have exact figures for comparison
- [ ] Each institutional mechanism is matched to a specific DFI framework classification
- [ ] No information gaps exist for scorable features
- [ ] No evaluation or scoring language has been included (only "PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION")
- [ ] No numerical point values are mentioned in the research document
- [ ] All text is factual; no speculative language is used
- [ ] Source citations are complete with date and location information

## 8. Examples of Properly Formatted Research Components

### 8.1 Example: Standard Component (Electoral District Design)

```
### 1.2 Electoral District Design

**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: Finland uses a proportional representation system with 13 multi-member electoral districts for parliamentary elections. These districts are based on historical provinces with fixed boundaries that can only be changed through legislative amendments. Population deviations between districts range from 4.7% to 11.3% from the ideal equal size, based on the 2023 election data. The Electoral Administration Committee, an independent body, oversees the electoral process but does not draw district boundaries, as these are defined by law.

**LEGAL BASIS**: "For the purpose of parliamentary elections, the country shall be divided into at least twelve and at most eighteen constituencies based on regional divisions. In addition, the Åland Islands shall form their own constituency for the election of one Representative."  
**SOURCE**: Election Act of Finland (714/1998), Section 5, enacted 1998, https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1998/en19980714.pdf

"The electoral districts, with the exception of the electoral district of the Åland Islands, are determined by government decree in such a manner that an electoral district consists of one or more adjacent regions referred to in the Regions Act."  
**SOURCE**: Election Act of Finland (714/1998), Section 7, enacted 1998, https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1998/en19980714.pdf

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**:
- Deviation from Equal Population: ±5.1-15% deviation
- District Boundary Drawing: Not applicable (fixed territorial units)
- District Type Structure: Multi-member districts with proportional representation
```

### 8.2 Example: Component with Calculations (Campaign Finance Transparency)

```
### 1.1.5 Transparency Requirements for Campaign Donations

**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: In Estonia, all political donations exceeding €64 must be publicly disclosed with full donor information including name, personal identification code, and municipality of residence. Complete donation details including amount, date, and form are required. All information is published in a searchable online database maintained by the Political Parties Financing Surveillance Committee. The monthly minimum wage in Estonia is €820 (2023).

**LEGAL BASIS**: "A political party shall disclose all monetary donations in its website by recording the name, personal identification code or registration code and the amount of the donation of the donor and the date of receipt of the donation."  
**SOURCE**: Political Parties Act of Estonia, § 123(1), enacted 1994 (amended 2022), https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/513042023002/consolide

**CALCULATION**:  
- Monthly minimum wage: €820 (2023)
- 10% threshold benchmark: €82
- Legal disclosure threshold: €64
- Comparison: Legal threshold ÷ 10% benchmark = €64 ÷ €82 = 0.78 = 78% of benchmark

Additional criteria assessment:
- Donor identification: Full (name, ID code, municipality)
- Donation details: Complete (amount, date, form)
- Public accessibility: Searchable database

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**: Full public disclosure
```

### 8.3 Example: Absent Mechanism (Citizens' Assemblies)

```
### 5.1 Legislative Citizens' Assemblies

**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: Australia has no constitutional or federal statutory provisions establishing citizens' assemblies with legislative functions at the national level. While Australia had the "Australian Citizens' Parliament" in 2009, this was an academic research initiative rather than a government-established mechanism. In 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard proposed a Citizens' Assembly on climate change, but this was abandoned before implementation.

**VERIFICATION**: "A comprehensive review of the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and other relevant federal legislation confirms that no provisions exist for citizen-initiated legislative citizens' assemblies at the national level. While some states have experimented with citizens' juries for specific policy issues, these are subnational initiatives without constitutional or federal legislative status."  
**SOURCE**: Australian Constitution, Chapters I-VIII, enacted 1901; Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2023C00237

**CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY VERIFICATION**:  
- Initiating authority: None at federal government level (the 2009 Australian Citizens' Parliament was initiated by academics)
- Official documentation: No founding government documents
- Geographic scope: While the 2009 Australian Citizens' Parliament was national in scope, it was not established by government
- Participant selection: Not applicable for government-initiated assemblies
- Issues addressed: Not applicable for government-initiated assemblies
- Final determination: Does not qualify as government-initiated national-level citizens' assembly
- Reason: The single national-level citizens' assembly (2009) was organized by researchers rather than government, and the proposed government assembly (2010) was abandoned before implementation  
**SOURCE**: The Australian Citizens' Parliament and the Future of Deliberative Democracy, 2013, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/j.ctt32b9zd

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**: Not present in constitutional/legal framework
```

### 8.4 Example: Complex Component (Foreign Donation Loopholes)

```
### 1.1.2.1 Foreign Source Donations

**RESEARCH FINDINGS**: Canada prohibits foreign donations to political campaigns and parties through the Canada Elections Act. Non-citizens and non-permanent residents are prohibited from making political contributions. However, several enforcement gaps and technical workarounds exist that may allow foreign influence to enter the system indirectly.

**LEGAL BASIS**: "No person who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a nomination contestant, a candidate or a leadership contestant."  
**SOURCE**: Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, Section 363(1), enacted 2000 (amended 2019), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-2.01/page-43.html#h-206835

**IDENTIFIED LOOPHOLES**:
1. Corporate funding timeframe gap - Regulatory Gap
   "Foreign-owned Canadian corporations can make political contributions through their Canadian operations as long as the revenue used was generated in Canada. No waiting or 'cooling-off' period exists between a company's establishment in Canada and its ability to donate."
   **SOURCE**: Elections Canada, "Political Financing Handbook for Registered Parties," 2021, p.28, https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=pol/man/ec20231

2. Third-party advertising - Enforcement Gap
   "While third parties engaged in election advertising are prohibited from using foreign funds, the verification requirements rely primarily on self-attestation and limited auditing capacity."
   **SOURCE**: Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, Section 349.9(1), enacted 2000 (amended 2019), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-2.01/page-43.html#h-206835

**ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT**: Elections Canada is responsible for enforcing campaign finance regulations but faces significant challenges in tracking complex funding networks. The Commissioner of Canada Elections has limited investigative resources compared to the volume of political financing activities. Between 2019-2023, there were only three prosecutions related to foreign funding violations despite multiple complaints.  
**SOURCE**: Commissioner of Canada Elections, Annual Report 2022-2023, pp.14-16, https://www.cef-cce.ca/content.asp?section=rep&dir=ann&document=index&lang=e

**DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES**: A 2021 investigation by Elections Canada identified contributions from Canadian subsidiaries of foreign corporations totaling approximately CAD $110,000 across multiple parties. While technically legal under current regulations, these contributions demonstrated how foreign-connected entities can influence Canadian politics within the existing framework.  
**SOURCE**: Globe and Mail, "Foreign-owned subsidiaries donated $110,000 to Canadian political parties," March 12, 2022, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-foreign-owned-subsidiaries-donated-110000-to-canadian-parties/

**PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION**:
- Official Campaign Account: Completely prohibited
- Other Campaign Channels: Completely prohibited
- Loopholes: Exist (based on corporate funding timeframe gap and third-party advertising enforcement limitations)
```