Caste in the United States
Abstract
This evaluation applies the CID Rubric v0.3.2 to Equality Labs's 2018 report "Caste in the United States." The composite score of 3.8/10 (Advocacy-Grade) reflects structural methodological failures that prevent independent verification of the report's central claims. A non-compensatory cap was applied, reducing the raw weighted score from 5.2 to 3.8.
A full academic narrative for this report is in preparation. The dimensional analysis below is generated from scored data. See the Scoring Data view for the complete evidence trail.
Dimensional Analysis
Definitional Precision
5/10Caste and ethnicity conflated in survey instrument
Classification Rigor
3/10Self-administered — no quality control documented
Case Capture & Sampling
2/10⚑ Score ceiling applies — sampling cannot support population claims
Coverage Symmetry
5/10Source Independence
6/10Verification Standards
3/10Data under organizational control — no external access process
Transparency & Governance
5/10Counter-Evidence
2/10No limitations section — critics characterized as motivated
Citation Ecosystem
Post-publication citation analysis tracks how this report's findings have been represented in subsequent publications, policy documents, media coverage, and advocacy materials. Entries marked as escalations indicate instances where the report was cited with scope or authority beyond what the original methodology establishes.
Escalation Patterns (2)
Claimed scope: Population prevalence of caste discrimination among South Asian Americans in California and nationally
Established scope: Self-selected respondents who engaged with advocacy networks; findings cannot be generalized to population
Legislative testimony cited the 67% figure as establishing prevalence of caste discrimination in the South Asian American population. The figure describes the self-selected sample, not the population. The distinction was not disclosed in testimony.
Claimed scope: Documented workplace caste discrimination prevalence in South Asian American professional communities
Established scope: Survey of advocacy-network-recruited respondents; workplace subsample not reported separately
Multiple corporations adopted anti-caste HR policies citing this survey as evidentiary basis. The methodological limitations were not disclosed in the policy rationales reviewed.
Additional Citations Tracked (1)
Scope: Explicitly characterized as limited by sampling methodology — the most accurate citation in the corpus
Carnegie's footnote 29 explicitly documents the sampling limitations. This is the only major citation that accurately represents what the survey can and cannot establish. It is the methodological landmark citation in the corpus.
Limitations of This Review
This evaluation assesses methodological rigor only. It does not evaluate the factual accuracy of individual claims or the existence of the phenomena the report describes. The CID Rubric v0.3.2 is designed for published research reports; application to certain document types requires adapted interpretation of specific dimensions. The CID has not independently investigated the organizations or individuals referenced in the report.