# DFI Research

This README is for the **research phase** of scoring a country with the Democratic Fitness Indicator. The research phase produces a set of evidence reports — one per category, plus several focused special-research outputs — that document what the country's law actually says and how it operates in practice. Those reports become the inputs for the *scoring* phase, where they're encoded into a YAML file and the DFI Builder produces the workbooks (see `README - DFI Builder.md` for that step).

The two phases are deliberately separated. Research is about getting the facts right; scoring is about applying the framework to those facts. Mixing them — picking a classification before fully reading the law, or letting a researcher's score-attentive bias shape what they document — produces noisier outputs.

### Core principle: all research-related issues must be fully resolved at the research stage

The research phase produces the **proposed classifications** for every framework row. These classifications must be unambiguous, sourced, and resolved against the methodology — not deferred to the YAML author or the verification reviewer. The handoff from research to scoring is mechanical: the YAML author transcribes the proposed classifications into the country YAML; the Builder converts them into workbooks. There is no scope for the YAML author to make methodology calls, weigh competing interpretations, or pick between alternatives.

When a row appears genuinely ambiguous during research:
1. Re-read the framework spec for the row, all options, and any spec notes.
2. Re-read the matching Scoring Guidelines section for clarifications, worked examples, and edge cases.
3. Re-read the General guidelines for cross-cutting rules (strict-adherence, source hierarchy).
4. Check the existing corpus for a structurally analogous country whose research file resolved the same question.
5. If after this the row is still ambiguous, use the General guidelines Uncertainty Note format — but **only after the alternatives have been narrowed by methodology**. The Uncertainty Note records a documented call, not a deferred one.

Verification (Phase 6 of the workflow) audits the research output against the methodology and surfaces any unresolved issues — but verification's role is to catch missed resolutions, not to make new classification calls. If verification finds an issue, it returns to the researcher to resolve, then re-verifies. The output of verification is a research file with no open questions, ready for mechanical YAML encoding.

---

## What you produce

For one country, the research phase produces:

- **Seven per-category reports** in `Countries - results/<Country>/Research/` — one for each DFI category, named e.g. `Germany - Elections - report.md`.
- **A small number of special-research outputs** in `Countries - results/<Country>/Special research/` — focused investigations on specific high-stakes questions (foreign donation loopholes, public funding details, electoral disproportionality measurement, intentional gerrymandering investigation, accountability institution qualification).
- **A complete-DFI score document** (optional, after scoring) in `Countries - results/<Country>/Score/` — useful as a human-readable narrative summary, but not required for the Builder to produce workbooks.

The seven main reports are the core deliverables. The special-research outputs feed back into the relevant per-category report as referenced sections — they're not standalone scores.

---

## Folder setup

For a new country (let's say Germany), create:

```
Countries - results/Germany/
├── Research/                     ← seven per-category reports go here
└── Special research/             ← focused special-research outputs go here
```

Naming conventions for output files (taken from existing corpus):

```
Research/
├── Germany - Elections - report.md
├── Germany - Accountability - report.md
├── Germany - Parliamentary Initiative - report.md
├── Germany - Referenda - report.md
├── Germany - Citizens Assemblies - report.md
├── Germany - Safeguards - report.md
└── Germany - Constitution - report.md

Special research/
├── Germany - Foreign donation loopholes - special research.md
├── Germany - Public Funding part 1 - special research.md
├── Germany - Public Funding part 2 - special research.md
├── Germany - Electoral disproportionality - special research.md
├── Germany - Intentional gerrymandering - special research.md
└── Germany - Accountability - special research.md
```

The seven per-category reports are mandatory; the special-research files are produced only for the categories that have applicable special research requests — Cat 1 has five (foreign donation loopholes, public funding part 1, public funding part 2, electoral disproportionality, intentional gerrymandering), Cat 2 has one, the other five have none.

---

## What you read

Every research session draws from four reference directories at the project root:

- **`Main DFI framework/`** — the framework specs. One `.docx` per category. Tells you *what* to score: every row, every spec option, every penalty trigger. This is the authoritative answer to "what classification labels exist and what does each mean."
- **`Research guidelines/`** — cross-category methodology. How to research, how to format the output, what verification looks like.
- **`Special research requests/`** — focused investigation guides for specific high-stakes questions within a category.
- **`New scoring guidelines/`** — operational scoring rules. **The `General guidelines.md` file in this directory is load-bearing for every category** — it documents country-size buckets, the four-rung hourly-minimum-wage cascade (used by Cat 1 §1.1.5 and Cat 2 §2.C), the source-documentation hierarchy, the strict-adherence rule, and the standardized Uncertainty Note format. Read it once, before starting your first per-category report.

The per-category Scoring Guidelines files (`DFI - Scoring Guidelines 1 - Elections.md`, etc.) within `New scoring guidelines/` are also load-bearing — read the matching file when starting each category. They contain worked examples and edge-case clarifications that resolve borderline classification questions before they reach the YAML author. Two sections are particularly load-bearing: **Cat 1 §1.3 (Electoral disproportionality) and §1.4 (Intentional gerrymandering)**, which specify the per-chamber penalty schedule, the asymmetric-pair max-per-chamber-penalty convention, the Strong-evidence A/B/C standard, and the present-state rule with edge cases — researchers producing the corresponding special-research files need both sections in front of them.

### Cross-category methodology — read once, refer back per category

Four files apply to every category:

| File | What it covers | When to read |
|---|---|---|
| `New scoring guidelines/General guidelines.md` | Cross-category calculation principles, country-size buckets (Small <10M / Medium 10–50M / Large >50M), the four-rung hourly-minimum-wage cascade, source-documentation hierarchy, strict-adherence rule, standardized Uncertainty Note format. | Once, before starting the first category. Load-bearing for every category. |
| `Research guidelines/DFI - Research Phase Guidelines.md` | The master research methodology. How to handle ambiguity, when direct quotes from legal texts are required, what counts as documentation. | Once, before starting the first category. Refer back when you hit an unfamiliar pattern. |
| `Research guidelines/DFI - Research formatting guidelines.md` | Output format. Section headings (1.1, 1.1.1, etc.), required subsections per row (RESEARCH FINDINGS, LEGAL BASIS, SOURCE, PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION). | Once, then keep open while drafting your first report — afterwards the format becomes habitual. |
| `Research guidelines/DFI - Verification of Research Guidelines.md` | Second-conversation verification protocol. Knowing the verification criteria up front shapes what you document. | Once, before starting research. Apply during the verification step (Phase 6 of the workflow below). |

These four are the methodology files needed throughout the research phase. Scoring is performed mechanically by the DFI Builder once the YAML is written; see `README - DFI Builder.md` for that workflow.

---

## At-a-glance category map

| Cat | Category | Framework spec | Special research applies |
|---:|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elections | `DFI - elections 1.docx` | Foreign donation loopholes • Public funding ×2 • Electoral disproportionality • Intentional gerrymandering |
| 2 | Holding Politicians Accountable | `DFI - accountability 2.docx` | Accountability institution |
| 3 | Parliamentary Legislative Initiative | `DFI - parliamentary initiative 3.docx` | — |
| 4 | Citizens-Initiated Referenda | `DFI - referenda 4.docx` | — |
| 5 | Citizens' Assemblies | `DFI - citizens' assemblies 5.docx` | — |
| 6 | Safeguards | `DFI - safeguards 6.docx` | — |
| 7 | Ability to Change the Constitution | `DFI - changing the constitution 7.docx` | — |

Cat 1 carries the heaviest research load (five focused special-research outputs in addition to the main report). Cat 2 has one. The other five categories rely entirely on the framework spec plus the cross-category methodology files.

Categories are independent — you can research them in any order. Most researchers go in numerical order because Cat 1 is the largest and sets habits; some prefer to start with a smaller category (Cat 3 or Cat 5) to get the formatting fluent before tackling Cat 1.

---

## Per-category research inputs

### Cat 1 — Elections (25% of DFI)

**What it measures**: how citizens choose representatives — campaign finance, electoral district design, voting methods, threshold rules, presidential voting (where applicable), and structural distortions of the popular vote (monarch's PM-selection power, unelected upper house, presidential dissolution, electoral disproportionality, intentional gerrymandering).

**Framework spec**: `Main DFI framework/DFI - elections 1.docx`

**Special research requests that apply** (each produces a separate output file in `Special research/`):

- `Special research requests/Foreign donation loopholes 2.1.md` → for §1.1.2.1's loophole penalty (-25%). Investigates whether the country's foreign-donation prohibition has practical workarounds: domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations, unincorporated associations, third-party campaigners, crypto/crowdfunding gaps, enforcement weaknesses.
- `Special research requests/Public funding for campaigns - part 1.md` and `… part 2.md` → for §1.1.4's coverage assessment. Calculates public funding as % of campaign costs, identifies the qualification threshold (whether the bonus applies), determines coverage scope (presidential / parliamentary / both — which controls the §1.1.4 halving rule).
- `Special research requests/Electoral disproportionality 1.2.md` → for the disproportionality row. Measures vote-to-seat translation gap via the Gallagher Index (Least Squares Index), with brackets <7 Minimal / 7–15 (inclusive) Limited / >15 Severe applied per chamber. Mathematical, not investigative. The methodology covers mixed-system handling, sub-1% party aggregation, satellite-party situations (use constituency-vote framing), and the per-chamber penalty schedule with the asymmetric-pair max-per-chamber convention. Per-chamber penalty values mirror the Scoring Guidelines §1.3.5.
- `Special research requests/Intentional gerrymandering 1.0.md` → for the intent row. Investigates whether currently-in-force boundaries were drawn through a process documented to have intentional partisan or racial-discriminatory advantage as a goal. Three classifications: Not applicable / Not present / Lower–Upper–Both–Single chamber Present. Strong-evidence requirement: Type A (court rulings) OR Type B (legislative-record evidence) OR Type C (public partisan-advantage statements) — any one suffices. Type D (quantitative pattern) supporting only, requires corroboration. Present-state rule: only currently-in-force boundaries matter. Edge cases for court-stayed maps, court-ordered remedials, mid-decade redistricting are documented in the methodology.

**Country-profile inputs the framework needs**:
- **Population** — drives Small (<10M) / Medium (10–50M) / Large (>50M) bucketing
- **Hourly minimum wage** — benchmark for §1.1.5 (transparency disclosure threshold)
- **Constitutional system** — bicameral vs. unicameral, direct vs. indirect presidential election, upper house elected vs. appointed

**Worked examples** in the existing corpus:
- Federal republic with direct presidential election: USA, Mexico, South Africa, Colombia
- Unitary republic with direct presidential election: Costa Rica, Peru, South Korea
- Parliamentary monarchy: UK, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Netherlands
- Federal directorial republic: Switzerland
- Unitary parliamentary republic: Latvia, Poland
- Westminster parliamentary with House of Chiefs: Botswana

**Common pitfalls**:
- The §1.1.4 halving rule (combined Coverage + Bonus contribution halved when public funding covers only one election type) is easy to miss. Check whether public funding extends to both presidential and parliamentary campaigns.
- Electoral disproportionality classifications must use the spec's Gallagher Index brackets (`Minimal <7`, `Limited 7–15` inclusive both edges, `Severe >15`) — not a researcher-invented threshold. The two distortions are scored independently: a country can have substantial disproportionality without intentional manipulation (UK 2024 — independent boundary commissions, Severe Gallagher 23.7 with Not present intent), or low disproportionality with documented intent (USA House 2024 — Minimal Gallagher 1.9 with Lower house — Present from Texas LULAC + California Prop 50 + North Carolina), or both, or neither. Don't conflate them.
- Satellite-party situations (e.g., South Korea 2024) require special handling: the parent-and-satellite split inflates the standard PR-vote-share Gallagher denominator. Per methodology 1.2 §Step 3, use the constituency-vote framing in those cases (Korea recompute: 26.6 PR-vote → 8.5 constituency-vote, the methodologically correct reading).
- Asymmetric chamber pairs (lower and upper houses in different brackets) use the **max-per-chamber-penalty-value convention**, not the higher-classification convention. Lower Limited + Upper Severe = max(−50, −50) = −50% (not Severe). Document per-chamber Gallagher values in the YAML comment so the asymmetry stays visible.
- Specific-event claims in research notes (e.g., "Texas 2025 redistricting") need primary-source backing. Vague hedges like "rarely" require quantitative grounding before they support classification calls.

---

### Cat 2 — Holding Politicians Accountable (15% of DFI)

**What it measures**: whether citizens can hold politicians accountable between elections — recall referenda, abrogative referenda (citizen power to repeal laws), Freedom of Information laws, and bonus credit for an independent accountability institution that investigates elected officials.

**Framework spec**: `Main DFI framework/DFI - accountability 2.docx`

**Special research request that applies**:

- `Special research requests/Accountability institution.md` → for §2.D's bonus assessment. The bonus applies when the country has an independent body that investigates elected-official misconduct, has remedial powers (binding +20% / non-binding +10%), is citizen-accessible, and operates outside the regular electoral/legislative/judicial chain. Checks all four criteria carefully — failing any one disqualifies the institution.

**Country-profile inputs**:
- **Population** — drives signature-threshold breakpoints for recall and abrogative mechanisms
- **Hourly minimum wage** — benchmark for §2.C's FOI cost row (paper-format cost per page as % of hourly minimum wage)
- **Bicameral / unicameral** — partial parliament recall structurally N/A in unicameral systems

**Worked examples**:
- Country with active recall: Mexico (presidential recall, Article 35-IX, first used 2022)
- Country with abrogative referendum: Latvia (Article 72), Costa Rica (Article 105), Peru (Article 32 — high threshold triggers very-high-signature penalty)
- No recall, no abrogative, with FOI bonus: UK (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, +10% non-binding), Canada (Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, +10%)
- No recall, no abrogative, no qualifying bonus: Norway, Sweden (JO disqualified — Section 15 explicitly excludes elected officials from JO's jurisdiction), Netherlands (National Ombudsman covers administrative conduct only)

**Common pitfalls**:
- The very-high-signature penalty (-25% in §2.A and §2.B) triggers at **≥10% of registered voters**, not 10% of population. Peru's 10%-of-electoral-roll requirement = 7.49% of population — but the spec measures against the electoral roll, so the penalty fires.
- Time-restriction penalty applies to short signature-collection windows. The brackets (`<30 days`, `30-60 days`, `60-100 days`) use **inclusive lower edges** — exactly 30 days maps to <30 days bracket per the convention.
- The §2.D bonus is **single-award**: even if multiple institutions qualify (e.g., Japan's Public Prosecutors Office and Board of Audit both have a case), only the highest-scoring one applies — the bonuses don't stack.
- An institution's mandate must extend to **elected officials**, not just public administration. Sweden's JO and Netherlands' National Ombudsman fail this gate.

---

### Cat 3 — Parliamentary Legislative Initiative (5% of DFI)

**What it measures**: whether citizens can submit ordinary legislation directly to parliament for deliberation. Unlike referenda, these proposals don't trigger an automatic public vote — they go to the legislature for consideration.

**Framework spec**: `Main DFI framework/DFI - parliamentary initiative 3.docx`

**Special research request that applies**: none.

**Country-profile inputs**:
- **Population** — drives signature-threshold breakpoints (Low/Medium/High vary by Small/Medium/Large country)

**Worked examples**:
- Mechanism exists, low threshold: Peru (0.3%), Mexico (0.13%), Latvia (10% — High Threshold)
- Mechanism exists, with electronic-signature support: Latvia, Netherlands (40,000 sigs, e+p), Poland (100,000 sigs, paper-only)
- Mechanism doesn't exist (existence gate fires → 0%): UK, USA, Canada, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, South Korea, Japan, Botswana

**Common pitfalls**:
- The **existence gate**: when no formal citizen-legislative-initiative mechanism exists, the category short-circuits to 0%. The detail rows in the YAML are still required for schema consistency but their values are ignored.
- "Petition right" ≠ "legislative initiative." Many countries permit citizens to *petition* parliament (UK e-petitions, German Bundestag petitions, Japanese Article 16 petitions), but the petition doesn't become a bill — it triggers at most a debate or response. Cat 3 measures whether citizens can submit *legislative text* with a parliamentary obligation to consider it as a bill.
- Population bucket matters: Latvia's 10% threshold is High Threshold for a Small country (<10M); for a Large country the same percentage would be far above the High bracket and the same penalty schedule would still apply, but the bracket boundaries differ.

---

### Cat 4 — Citizens-Initiated Referenda (10% of DFI)

**What it measures**: whether citizens can initiate binding referenda — both on fully-drafted legislation (legislative referenda) and on policy questions without specific text (policy-issue referenda). The two types are scored separately and combined via type-conditional weights.

**Framework spec**: `Main DFI framework/DFI - referenda 4.docx`

**Special research request that applies**: none.

**Country-profile inputs**:
- **Population** — drives signature-threshold brackets
- **Constitutional system** — federal vs. unitary affects whether sub-national referenda count (they don't — Cat 4 is national-level only)

**Worked examples**:
- Both types present (rich case): Switzerland
- Legislative-only present: Latvia (Article 72 abrogative)
- Policy-only present: rare — Costa Rica's Article 105 is best read as legislative+policy
- Neither type (existence gate): UK, USA, Canada, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, South Korea, Japan, Mexico (consulta popular doesn't meet binding threshold), Netherlands (Wet raadgevend abolished 2018)

**Common pitfalls**:
- Type-conditional weights: legislative-only → 0.80 of category; policy-only → 0.50; both present → 0.615 + 0.385. **Weights are not redistributed when one type is missing** — this rewards systems with both pathways.
- Distortion penalties apply **per type**, additive in percentage points (per Scoring Guidelines §3.2.3). Watch for time-window penalties (≤30 day collection window), very-high-signature penalty (≥10% of registered voters), judicial-review-post-collection (-25%), and veto power (-100%).
- The §5/§6 boundary on judicial review vs. veto: a constitutional-court reviewing referendum proposals on constitutional-compatibility grounds is §5 substantive judicial review (-25%), not a §6 political veto (-100%). Costa Rica's Sala IV is the canonical example. The criterion is whether the body acts on constitutional doctrine (§5) or political/policy considerations (§6).
- Approval-quorum boundaries: the spec's `>50%` and `≥40-50%` brackets leave 50%-exact at a boundary. The inclusive-upper-edge convention maps it to the higher-scoring bracket.

---

### Cat 5 — Citizens' Assemblies (15% of DFI)

**What it measures**: deliberative processes where randomly-selected citizens (sortition) deliberate over several sessions with expert input and produce recommendations. The category recognizes both citizen-initiated assemblies (rare) and a bonus track for government-initiated national-level assemblies that meet the deliberative-democracy criteria.

**Framework spec**: `Main DFI framework/DFI - citizens' assemblies 5.docx`

**Special research request that applies**: none.

**Country-profile inputs**:
- **Population** — drives signature-threshold brackets (same Small/Medium/Large logic as Cat 3/4)

**Worked examples**:
- No corpus country has a citizen-initiation mechanism in law — Cat 5's main path is "currently theoretical" worldwide.
- Bonus path (1pp for one assembly, 3pp for two or more): Netherlands (2 — Burgerforum 2006, Klimaat 2025), UK (2 — Social Care 2018, Climate Assembly 2020), Canada (2), Norway (1+), Japan (1 — 2012 Energy/Environment Deliberative Poll), Poland (1 — Youth Citizens' Panel 2025).
- Existence-gate failure (no citizen mechanism, no qualifying government-initiated assemblies): USA, Botswana, Costa Rica, Switzerland (despite Switzerland's strong Cat 4 — bonus criteria require sortition + expert input + structured deliberation, not just citizen consultation).

**Common pitfalls**:
- The bonus path requires **all** of: random-selection sortition, expert input, structured deliberation, advisory output to government. Open public-consultation meetings (Botswana's Vision 2036, Mexico's consultas ciudadanas) don't qualify — they lack random selection and structured deliberation.
- Local-level assemblies don't count for the national-level bonus. Many countries have municipal CAs (Gdańsk since 2016) but no national track record.
- **Direct DFI contribution**: the bonus is a fixed-pp DFI contribution (1pp or 3pp), not a category percentage scaled by 15%. This is one of the few places in the DFI where a contribution bypasses the standard `category × weight` formula.

---

### Cat 6 — Safeguards (15% of DFI)

**What it measures**: the selection processes for institutions that constrain political power — judges, media regulators, electoral commission members, prosecutor general, constitutional court members (split into nomination + selection halves), and the body that validates election results. Six independent sub-components, each scored on its own scale.

**Framework spec**: `Main DFI framework/DFI - safeguards 6.docx`

**Special research request that applies**: none.

**Country-profile inputs**:
- None specific to Cat 6 beyond country-name basics. The sub-components are scored against enumerated institutional models, not country-size brackets.

**Worked examples**:
- Standard main path: South Korea (hand-verified at 0pp delta against published 62.67%)
- Dual-system Media (separate public + private regulators): Norway, Sweden, Latvia, Japan
- No formal Electoral Commission (alternative-administration models): Sweden (Election Authority), Switzerland (commune-level), USA (state-level), Norway (Ministry-led)
- No separate Constitutional Court: Norway, Sweden, Switzerland (existence gate → 0/40); UK and Botswana (Supreme Court / High Court fulfils CC role → score the actual selection mechanism)

**Common pitfalls**:
- The Constitutional Court existence gate has two readings, and different corpus countries pick different sides. **Spec-strict reading**: when no separate CC exists, score 0/40 (existence gate fires). **Functional reading**: when another body fulfils the constitutional-review role, score that body's selection mechanism. The Builder accepts either; the YAML author must pick one and document the call.
- The Cat 6 spec authorizes **dual-system averaging only for Media**. Other sub-components require a single representative classification even when split institutions exist (Colombia's Registraduría + CNE for Electoral Commission).
- The §6.0.1 sub-component weights table shows `Total: 14%` but the actual sum of listed weights is 2+2+2+2+4+3 = 15. The Builder uses 15 (matches the §6.0.3 worked example and published Korea/Norway scores). Researcher-side, treat the sum as 15 unless future spec revision says otherwise.

---

### Cat 7 — Ability to Change the Constitution (15% of DFI)

**What it measures**: who controls the rules of the game — initiation methods, the process type that drafts amendment text, and the approval mechanism. Three sub-components combine into a base score, then category-wide distortions (vetoes by monarchs / religious authorities / military / unelected bodies, eternity clauses) apply multiplicatively.

**Framework spec**: `Main DFI framework/DFI - changing the constitution 7.docx`

**Special research request that applies**: none.

**Country-profile inputs**:
- **Population** — drives signature-threshold brackets for citizen-initiation pathways
- **Federal vs. unitary** — federal/regional unit-initiated and federal-system approval mechanisms apply only to federal systems

**Worked examples**:
- Strong citizen-initiation: Switzerland (highest at 63.075%), Latvia, Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia
- Citizen-approval required (mandatory referendum): Switzerland, Japan (Article 96), South Korea (Article 130)
- Citizen-initiation in law but operationally dormant: Mexico (Article 71, lacks implementing legislation)
- No citizen pathway, parliamentary-only: UK, Canada, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Botswana, Poland, Netherlands

**Common pitfalls**:
- "Simple majority in both chambers" is a **placeholder option** the Builder added to fill a spec gap. The original three Parliamentary-Initiated options were Single-chamber simple majority (50%), single-chamber supermajority (50%), both-chambers supermajority (40%). The intermediate case — both chambers required, both at simple majority — applies to Switzerland (Articles 156 + 195), Canada (Sections 38+44 routes), and Colombia (Article 375 second period). Builder's placeholder value is 45%, pending calibration. Logged in `notes/spec-issues.md`.
- Penalties are **multiplicative**, not additive. Worked example: 65% × (1 - 0.5) = 32.5% for a present-but-unused monarch veto. The penalty sum is clamped at -100%. Watch for the distinction from Cat 1 category-wide penalties, which subtract in percentage points.
- "Eternity clauses" require **textual unamendability** of specified provisions. Provisions that merely raise the bar for amendment (require additional consent, higher thresholds) don't count. Federal-arrangement protections (US Article V's equal Senate suffrage) are not anti-democratic structures if they serve power-balancing functions.
- "Used in practice over the last 100 years" is a binary classification — not a hedged frequency claim. If a power exists and has been exercised even occasionally, the classification is "used in practice." If it exists in law but has never been invoked (UK Royal Assent never refused since 1708, Norway monarch since 1884), the classification is "not used in practice" with halved penalty.

---

## The research workflow

Once setup and inputs are clear, the cadence per country is:

1. **Set up the country folder** in `Countries - results/<Country>/` with `Research/` and `Special research/` subfolders.
2. **Read the cross-category methodology files** (Research Phase Guidelines, Research formatting guidelines, Verification of Research Guidelines) once.
3. **Pick the first category** to research — Cat 1 if going in order, or a smaller category to warm up on.
4. **Read the framework spec** for that category. Skim first to map the structure; then read carefully, noting the row-by-row classification options.
5. **Read the relevant special-research request files** for that category (zero to five, per the at-a-glance table).
6. **Compile primary legal sources** for the country: constitution, primary statute(s), implementing regulations. Keep direct citations to article and section numbers as you go.
7. **Conduct research and draft the report**, following `DFI - Research formatting guidelines.md` for structure. For each row in the framework spec, document RESEARCH FINDINGS + LEGAL BASIS (with direct quotes) + SOURCE + PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION.
8. **Produce the special-research outputs** as separate files in `Special research/`. Cross-reference them from the main per-category report where relevant.
9. **Run verification** — apply `DFI - Verification of Research Guidelines.md` to the draft. Surface any unresolved row to the researcher; iterate until the file has no open questions.
10. **Move to the next category** and repeat steps 4-9.

### Recommended cadence: one category at a time, fully verified before the next

Research and verification are most productive when run **sequentially per category** rather than in parallel across all seven. Reasons:

- **Verification produces cumulative learning.** Issues surfaced during Cat 1 verification (e.g., methodology subtleties, naming conventions, citation style, common pitfalls for the country) carry forward into Cat 2 research. Running all seven in parallel re-discovers the same issues seven times.
- **Methodology gaps surface earlier.** If a row's classification reveals a gap in the framework or scoring guidelines (e.g., the chamber-pair penalty asymmetric-case clarification logged in `notes/spec-issues.md`), catching it during the first category lets the methodology be refined before five more categories repeat the same pattern.
- **Researcher attention is finite.** A single category fully verified produces a clean handoff to YAML; seven half-verified categories produce seven half-handoffs that need re-checking.
- **Country-profile facts converge.** As Cat 1 establishes the country profile (population, minimum wage, constitutional system, electoral system, etc.), later categories inherit those settled facts without re-researching them.

The typical cadence per country is therefore:

```
Cat 1 → research → verify → resolve issues → archive    ┐
Cat 2 → research → verify → resolve issues → archive    │
Cat 3 → research → verify → resolve issues → archive    ├ each category fully closed
Cat 4 → research → verify → resolve issues → archive    │   before the next opens
Cat 5 → research → verify → resolve issues → archive    │
Cat 6 → research → verify → resolve issues → archive    │
Cat 7 → research → verify → resolve issues → archive    ┘
```

A category is "archived" when (a) the main per-category report exists, (b) any applicable special-research files exist, (c) verification has run and no open questions remain, and (d) every row carries an unambiguous proposed classification ready for mechanical YAML transcription. At that point, the YAML author could in principle encode that category immediately — but in practice the YAML phase begins after all seven categories are archived, since some YAML rows depend on cross-category facts (e.g., country-profile inputs).

Once all seven per-category reports are complete and verified, the research phase is done. Hand off to the scoring phase via `README - DFI Builder.md` — the YAML author follows the remaining phases (scaffold, fill, validate + build, sanity-check, independent verification) to encode the research outputs into the country YAML and produce the workbooks.

---

## Worked corpus: 20 existing countries

Each country folder under `Countries - results/` contains a complete set of research outputs. Use them as worked examples — the structurally closest country to yours is usually the most useful template.

| Country | Notable structural features that make it a useful template |
|---|---|
| **USA** | Federal presidential republic; FOIA excludes Congress and judiciary; Cat 7 federal-system approval (2/3 + 3/4 of states); §1.1.4 halving fires (public funding presidential-only) |
| **Mexico** | Federal presidential republic; presidential recall (Article 35-IX); citizen-initiated constitutional pathway (dormant); 2024 INAI reform (Cat 2 oversight body lost independence); 2025 judicial-election reform (Cat 6 judges) |
| **South Africa** | Federal presidential republic; tiered Cat 7 amendment thresholds; §2.D bonus via Public Protector; Cat 6 IEC as Independent Commission Model |
| **Colombia** | Federal-ish presidential republic; rich Cat 7 (citizen + Article 376 preliminary referendum); Cat 4 + Cat 7 dual citizen pathways |
| **Costa Rica** | Unicameral presidential republic; Cat 4 Sala IV review (§5/§6 boundary case); Cat 2 Contraloría +20% bonus; Cat 7 dual-track partial/general reforms |
| **Peru** | Unicameral presidential republic; Cat 2 abrogative with very-high-signature penalty; Cat 3 low-threshold PLI; Cat 4 strict approval mechanisms |
| **South Korea** | Unicameral presidential republic; Cat 6 hand-verified (62.67%); Cat 7 Article 130 (legislative supermajority + binding referendum); three-branch CC nomination |
| **UK** | Westminster parliamentary monarchy; uncodified constitution; Cat 6 Multi-Party Consensus Electoral Commission; Cat 7 with Royal Assent + Lords delay distortions |
| **Canada** | Federal Westminster monarchy; Cat 7 multi-formula amendment (Sections 38/41/43/44/45); Senate full-veto used in practice (sourced count); Cat 2 Ethics Commissioner +10% bonus |
| **Norway** | Unicameral parliamentary monarchy; no recall, no abrogative; no separate CC (existence gate); Cat 6 dual-system Media |
| **Sweden** | Unicameral parliamentary monarchy; Cat 7 negative-threshold blocking referendum (never invoked since 1974); JO disqualified from §2.D bonus |
| **Switzerland** | Federal directorial republic; rich Cat 4 (legislative + policy); Cat 7 highest scorer; consensus-bicameral simple majority (45% placeholder); Cat 6 Council of States not directly elected |
| **Japan** | Bicameral parliamentary monarchy; Cat 7 Article 96 (2/3 + simple-majority referendum); Cat 6 Supreme Court with voter-retention selection; Cat 2 PPO +20% bonus via Inquest of Prosecution Committee |
| **Netherlands** | Bicameral parliamentary monarchy; Eerste Kamer indirectly elected (full veto used in practice); no constitutional court (Article 120); Cat 7 two-stage process |
| **Latvia** | Unicameral parliamentary republic; rich Cat 2 (recall + abrogative); Cat 7 Article 79 ≥50% approval-quorum boundary case |
| **Poland** | Bicameral parliamentary republic; Cat 3 PLI exists; Cat 7 Article 235 (Sejm 2/3 + Senate absolute majority); RPO +10% bonus |
| **Botswana** | Westminster parliamentary republic with House of Chiefs (advisory); presidential dissolution power; severe electoral disproportionality (Gallagher 23.0); +10% Ombudsman bonus |
| **Germany** | Federal parliamentary republic; compensatory MMP Bundestag; indirectly-elected Bundesrat (regional veto); Cat 5 government-initiated Bürgerräte (§3.4.3 initiation-vs-reception worked example); §6.5 Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) functional reading; eternity clause (Article 79.3) — pro-democratic, no penalty |
| **Spain** | Bicameral parliamentary monarchy; Cat 6 highest scorer (70%) — supermajority architecture across multiple sub-components (RTVE 2/3, Tribunal Constitucional 3/5); Cat 1 spending-cap boundary case (2.4× ratio = Low caps, not Soft); Cat 3 Wide subject-matter restrictions (CE Art. 87(3)) |
| **Kenya** | Unitary presidential republic with bicameral legislature (National Assembly + Senate); Cat 7 Article 257 popular initiative (1M signatures); Cat 6 EACC +10% bonus; Independent Electoral Commission Model (IEBC, 90% sub-component) |

A synthetic country (`_synthetic_dual_penalty`) also exists in `countries/` for stress-testing penalty arithmetic — not a real-world research example.

---

## What happens next

Once research is complete and verified, the scoring phase begins. See `README - DFI Builder.md` for the six-phase workflow: research (Phase 1, this document), scaffold generation, value filling, validation + build, sanity-check, and independent verification.
