| Dim | Dimension | Score | Weight | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Definitional Precision | 8 | 12% | — |
| D2 | Classification Rigor | 8 | 18% | — |
| D3 | Case Capture & Sampling | 9 | 15% | — |
| D4 | Coverage Symmetry | 8 | 15% | — |
| D5 | Source Independence | 7 | 10% | csohate.org appears once in citations — provenance verification pending |
| D6 | Verification Standards | 5 | 18% | ⚑ Scoring rule limits grade — no documented data access pathway |
| D7 | Transparency & Governance | 8 | 5% | — |
| D8 | Counter-Evidence | 8 | 7% | — |
| Composite Score | 7.6 | Adequate | ||
Scope: The survey data is not available for download and Carnegie does not document a formal research data request process. This distinguishes it from Pew, which maintains a publicly documented archive request process that satisfies the revised verification standard. If Carnegie documents an equivalent access pathway, this report would score approximately 8.2.
Scope: csohate.org appears once in citations. Provenance and relationship to CSOH organizational structure requires verification before this is cleared.
Political and religious identity constructs operationalized through validated question batteries. Community-specific terminology defined with examples.
YouGov panel with quality screening and panel-level demographic profiling. Weighting methodology documented against ACS benchmarks.
ACS-weighted YouGov panel. Denominator reporting at 236 and 225 flags — near-universal across survey items. Subgroup n's reported throughout.
Questions posed symmetrically across religious and political identity categories. Zero directional content in question framing.
csohate.org appears once in citations — provenance verification pending
Carnegie is an independent nonpartisan institution. No documented advocacy positions on Indian American identity politics.
⚑ Scoring rule limits grade — no documented data access pathway
Data not available for open download and no formal research request process is documented. Under the revised rule (v0.3.1), a documented formal request process would satisfy the standard — as it does for Pew. Carnegie does not currently document such a process.
Carnegie institutional transparency. Funding disclosed. Authors named with affiliations.
Footnote 29 constitutes affirmative counter-evidence engagement — explicit critique of a competing methodology. This is the highest D8 score in the corpus at this score range.
How this report's findings have been cited or applied after publication. Severity reflects the gap between what the report establishes and how it was represented.
Claimed scope: Indian American partisan preferences as a community
Established scope: YouGov panel weighted to ACS — robust estimate, but panel methodology not disclosed in political citations
Partisan findings cited without disclosing the YouGov panel methodology or ACS weighting. Survey design is nonpartisan; the way it is cited in campaign materials is often not.
Scope: Defense of Equality Labs sampling approach without engaging the representativeness argument
The Equality Labs published response to footnote 29 does not address the core representativeness critique. The critique stands unrebutted on methodological grounds.