GENERAL GUIDELINES

### General Calculation Principles

- Calculate percentages of available points before applying to category weight
- Penalties are subtracted from maximum possible score, not from earned points
- Minimum category score is 0%, even if penalties would make it negative
- For non-applicable components, redistribute weight proportionally
- Final DFI score is the sum of all category contributions

### Country Size Classifications

When evaluating signature requirements and thresholds:
- Small Countries: Population < 10 million
- Medium Countries: Population 10-50 million  
- Large Countries: Population > 50 million

Use the most recent reliable population data available, citing the source (e.g., UN Population Division, World Bank, or official national census).

### Hourly Minimum Wage Proxy

Several DFI rows benchmark monetary thresholds against the country's hourly minimum wage:

- **Cat 1 §1.1.5** — disclosure threshold for campaign donations, evaluated against the country's *monthly* minimum wage (hourly × 160).
- **Cat 2 §2.C** — paper-format FOI cost per page, evaluated against the country's *hourly* minimum wage.

Both rows ultimately depend on a single hourly figure. Some countries — Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Italy, Cyprus, Austria, Singapore — have no statutory minimum wage and instead rely on sectoral collective bargaining. For those countries, apply this cascade in order; use the first rung that yields a defensible figure, and record the rung used in the country's YAML so reviewers can audit the choice.

| Rung | Source label (YAML `hourly_min_wage.source`) | Rule |
|---:|---|---|
| 1 | `statutory_hourly` | Country has an explicit statutory hourly minimum wage; use it directly. |
| 2 | `monthly_wage_divided_by_160` | Country has a statutory monthly minimum wage; divide by 160 (40 hours × 4 weeks). |
| 3 | `lowest_public_clerical` | No statutory minimum wage; use the lowest hourly wage for public-sector clerical work, taken from official statistics (labour ministry, statistical office, or equivalent). |
| 4 | `sixty_percent_public_admin_average` | Public-sector clerical figure unavailable; use 60% of the average hourly wage in public administration. |

The YAML's `hourly_min_wage` block records `value`, `source` (one of the four labels above), `currency`, and a `note` capturing the calculation trace and source citation. The Builder validates the source label at YAML load time. Once the hourly figure is recorded, both Cat 1 §1.1.5 and Cat 2 §2.C consume it; no separate wage discovery is required per category.

**Worked example — Norway**: no statutory minimum wage; sectoral CBAs (LO, NHO) yield an average sector-specific monthly minimum of NOK 37,000 (derived from construction, cleaning, and transport sector agreements). Applying rung 2: NOK 37,000 ÷ 160 = NOK 231.25/hour. The Norway YAML records this as `source: monthly_wage_divided_by_160` with the calculation trace in its `note` field.

### Source Documentation Hierarchy

For each scored component, documentation should follow this hierarchy:

1. Constitutional provisions (primary)
2. Organic laws or statutes governing the institution
3. Regular legislation
4. Established case law or judicial interpretations
5. Procedural rules and regulations
6. When necessary, credible secondary sources


## Relationship Between Framework and Guidelines

The Democratic Fitness Indicator (DFI) consists of two complementary documents that must be used together when evaluating democratic systems:

1. **The DFI Framework** is the primary document that establishes:
   - The fundamental structure of the seven categories
   - The weighting system for each category and component
   - The scoring criteria for each democratic mechanism
   - The penalty provisions for democratic limitations

2. **The DFI Scoring Guidelines** provide supplementary clarification on:
   - How to interpret ambiguous provisions in the framework
   - Step-by-step calculation methodologies for complex components
   - Classification criteria for distinguishing between similar mechanisms
   - Documentation requirements for ensuring consistent evaluation

## Application Protocol

When calculating a DFI score for any country, assessors must:

1. Begin with the DFI Framework as the foundational document
2. Consult the Scoring Guidelines for any areas requiring methodological clarification
3. Follow the specific calculation instructions in the Scoring Guidelines where provided
4. Document their methodology with reference to both documents

In cases where a provision in the DFI Framework appears unclear, the Scoring Guidelines should be consulted to resolve the ambiguity. However, the Scoring Guidelines cannot override or contradict the fundamental structure and criteria established in the Framework - they can only clarify their application.

## Reporting Uncertainties

Any uncertainties encountered during the scoring process must be explicitly documented in a designated "Classification Uncertainty Register" with:

1. **Clear identification** of the specific component, subcomponent, or mechanism where uncertainty exists
2. **Detailed explanation** of the nature of the uncertainty 
3. **Alternative interpretations** considered during assessment
4. **Reasoning behind the final decision** made by the assessor
5. **Supporting evidence** from constitutional/legal texts or authoritative sources
6. **Impact assessment** indicating how different interpretations would affect the score

These uncertainty reports should be formatted in a standardized way:
```
⚠️ CLASSIFICATION UNCERTAINTY NOTE ⚠️
-----------------------------------------
Component: [Category and specific component]
Nature of uncertainty: [Clear description of the ambiguity]
Alternative interpretations: [List of possible classifications with point values]
Selected interpretation: [Final classification decision with point value]
Rationale for selection: [Explanation with reference to framework/guidelines]
Supporting evidence: [Citations to constitutional/legal provisions]
Score impact: [Quantitative assessment of how alternative interpretations would change the score]
-----------------------------------------
```

---

### Strict Adherence to Established Scoring Criteria

To ensure methodological consistency and comparability across country assessments, the following principles must be strictly observed:

#### No Modified or Intermediate Scores

- **Use only exact point values explicitly stated in the DFI guidelines**. Do not create intermediate scores, partial points, or proportional allocations unless they are specifically authorized in the methodology.
  
- **Example**: If a component offers only options of 5 points, 0 points, or a penalty, these are the only valid scoring options. A score of 2.5/5 or any other intermediate value would be methodologically invalid.

- **Rationale**: Introducing unstated values compromises comparability between assessments and undermines the validity of the DFI framework.

#### No Additional Categories or Indicators

- **Use only the categories, components, and indicators explicitly defined in the DFI methodology**. Do not create new indicators or subcategories.

- **Do not modify the weighting structure** or redistribute points between components except where explicitly directed by the guidelines (e.g., for non-applicable presidential elections).

- **Example**: If a country has a unique democratic feature that doesn't align with existing indicators, document it in the notes section rather than creating a new scoring component.

### Hedge Language and Binary "Used in Practice" Rows

Several DFI rows use a binary "used in practice / not used in practice" classification that controls a halved-penalty rule (typically applicable to Cat 1 §1.6 distortions and all Cat 7 §7.4 distortions, where "used in practice over the last 100 years" doubles the penalty applied for the row). The methodology test is binary: has the power been exercised even once within the relevant time window, yes or no. There is no "rarely" tier.

When a research source uses hedge words — "rarely," "occasionally," "from time to time," "in extremis," "theoretically possible," "in practice not used" — without sourced quantification, the researcher must verify the empirical record with primary-source numbers before mapping the row to either side of the binary. The hedge word itself is not a classification.

- If the empirical record shows **even one documented use** within the time window, the row classifies as **"used in practice"** (full penalty).
- If the power has been **literally never** invoked within the time window, the row classifies as **"not used in practice"** (halved penalty).

A research file that hedges without quantifying must be returned to research stage for verification. See `Per-category research agent guide.md` for worked examples (Canada Senate veto resolution; UK Royal Assent never-refused-since-1708 corollary).

### Special Case Documentation

When encountering unusual institutional features:
1. Document the feature and its potential democratic implications
2. Explain how it was classified within the DFI framework
3. Note any methodological decisions made to accommodate the special case
4. Flag for potential methodological refinement
