Public reports shape policy. We check whether their evidence holds up.
An independent, methods-only review of the citations, sources, and transparency behind reports on India, Indian Americans, and Hindu communities — the same rubric applied to every one, regardless of its conclusions.
Current scope: India-focused reports, 1999–2026.
V-Dem Democracy Report — India as featured case, annual series
V-Dem is the academic project that labeled India an 'electoral autocracy' in 2021 — the phrase now quoted worldwide. The CID graded all ten Democracy Reports from 2017 to 2026, and they score Adequate at the very top of the band — the highest-scoring institutional report in the corpus, behind only Pew's one-off 2021 survey (the corpus's lone Research-Grade study). This is the mirror image of the Amnesty, USCIRF, and Freedom House country chapters: where those lacked a codebook, a sampling frame, inter-coder reliability, and a way to check claims inside the document, V-Dem has all four — a public codebook, expert coding run through a Bayesian model with confidence intervals, and a fully downloadable 31-million-point dataset. The grade describes the apparatus behind the 'electoral autocracy' call, not whether the call is correct; a skeptic can download the data and test the threshold themselves.Read the methodology review
Solid methods with real gaps in sourcing, transparency, or verification — most claims hold up, some need checking.
A score measures method, not whether we agree with the report's conclusions.
Built to be checked
Methods, not conclusions
A score measures how a report was built — never whether we agree with what it found.
One rubric, every report
Eight dimensions, published before any scoring. An advocacy report is held to the same standard as Pew.
Built to be checked
Every score is reconstructable from its visible dimension scores and the evidence behind each one.
Responses published
Any organization can reply; we publish it unedited. Factual errors get corrected and dated.
Reports can shape public debate.
Many reports influence hearings, news coverage, policy debates, and community trust. CID gives readers a clear way to check the methods behind them.
Eight questions, fixed weights, visible evidence.
Each report is checked for definitions, sampling, independent sources, verification, transparency, and how it handles criticism. The same rubric applies no matter who published it.
46 reports from 16 organizations.
The set spans 1999-2026. Each score links back to source data and the rubric version used when the report was reviewed.
All Scored Reports
Filter by grade, year, organization, or typeEvery row is a public report reviewed by CID. Use the filters to see reports by grade, or sort by year, score, organization, and report type. The score checks method and evidence, not whether CID agrees with the report.
- 1Research-Grade
- 9Adequate
- 22Deficient
- 14Advocacy-Grade
Showing 10 reports.
Organizations Reviewed
16 organizations with at least one scored reportEvery organization with at least one scored report appears here. Organizations with several reports get summary cards. Organizations with one reviewed report are listed below so no one mistakes them for missing or unscored.
Reviewed once so far
These organizations are already in CID. They do not yet have enough reviewed reports for a pattern page.
Citation Loops
4 tracked patternsA citation loop happens when one organization is treated as independent proof, even though the same people, funding, or sources sit behind both claims.
How Scores Work
Score areas · hard caps · grade bandsEvery report is checked with the same eight questions before its score becomes a grade band.
| Score area | What it measures |
|---|---|
| D1Definitional Precision | Are the key terms defined clearly enough that someone else could apply them the same way? |
| D2Classification Rigor | Would different analysts looking at the same data sort it into the same categories? |
| D3Case Capture & Sampling | Does the data actually represent what the report claims it represents? |
| D4Coverage Symmetry | Does the report cover its topic evenly, or does it only look in one direction? |
| D5Source Independence | Can readers check the sources on their own, or do they all trace back to the same place? |
| D6Verification Standards | Could an outside reader check the claims against the underlying evidence? |
| D7Transparency & Governance | Is it clear who funded the work, who wrote it, and whether they have conflicts of interest? |
| D8Counter-Evidence | Does the report address criticism and say what it cannot prove? |
- Research-Grade8.0–10.0
- Methods meet peer-review standards — the claims can be independently traced and verified.
- Adequate6.0–7.9
- Solid methods with real gaps in sourcing, transparency, or verification — most claims hold up, some need checking.
- Deficient4.0–5.9
- Significant method gaps — the report's specific claims are hard to verify from the document alone.
- Advocacy-Grade2.0–3.9
- Built like advocacy, not research — useful as context, not as independent evidence.
- Unreliable0.0–1.9
- Little verifiable method — the claims can't be independently traced or verified.