| Dim | Dimension | Score | Weight | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Definitional Precision | 4 | 12% | 'Supremacist,' 'ethnonationalist,' 'far-right' deployed editorially without operationalized criteria |
| D2 | Classification Rigor | N/A | 18% | — |
| D3 | Case Capture & Sampling | N/A | 15% | — |
| D4 | Coverage Symmetry | 4 | 15% | Swap Test flags asymmetry — characterization criteria not symmetrically applied |
| D5 | Source Independence | 3 | 10% | 188/261 sources are advocacy organizations — many with adversarial positions on subject organizations |
| D6 | Verification Standards | 4 | 18% | Heavy reliance on advocacy secondary sources rather than primary documentation |
| D7 | Transparency & Governance | 5 | 5% | Authors not individually named; conflict of interest not disclosed |
| D8 | Counter-Evidence | 2 | 7% | No limitations section; counter-arguments framed as bad faith |
| Composite Score | 3.7 | Advocacy-Grade | ||
Scope: Characterization criteria for 'supremacy' applied to conservative Hindu organizations are not applied to progressive Hindu organizations conducting equivalent coordinated advocacy. SASAC/HfHR-produced materials cited as evidence without noting the organizations' adversarial relationship to subjects.
Scope: 'Supremacist,' 'ethnonationalist,' and 'far-right' appear throughout without published decision rules. Independent observers cannot determine whether a given organizational position meets the report's criteria.
Scope: 188/261 sources are advocacy or other. Coalition partners with pre-existing adversarial positions on subjects cited as independent evidence.
Scope: Subject organizations' substantive responses not engaged. Primary counter-argument characterized as bad faith in section heading.
'Supremacist,' 'ethnonationalist,' 'far-right' deployed editorially without operationalized criteria
A definitions glossary exists — a positive methodological signal. However for an investigation report, D1 requires that characterizing terms be operationalized into decision rules an independent observer could apply. 'Hindutva' appears 312 times, 'nationalist' 119 times, 'far-right' 42 times. The criteria distinguishing Hindutva advocacy from mainstream Hindu conservative advocacy are not published. A trained analyst cannot determine from the published report whether a given HAF policy position meets the report's criteria for 'supremacy' or merely 'conservatism.'
Not applicable for Investigation Report type. No event coding or classification process claimed.
Not applicable for Investigation Report type. No sampling frame or data collection methodology claimed.
Swap Test flags asymmetry — characterization criteria not symmetrically applied
The report's stated scope — Hindutva organizations in America — is accurately labeled in the title. The Swap Test problem is criteria, not scope: the same type of coordinated organizational advocacy (diaspora mobilization, coalition building, policy lobbying, counter-research production) that is characterized as 'supremacist' when conducted by HAF, CoHNA, and HSS is not characterized equivalently when conducted by Savera, SASAC, or HfHR — organizations that are co-publishers of related reports in this ecosystem. hindutvaharassmentfieldmanual.org (produced by SASAC/HfHR) is cited 11 times as evidence. The criteria are structurally asymmetric.
188/261 sources are advocacy organizations — many with adversarial positions on subject organizations
Source diversity appears high by HHI measure (0.02) with 89 unique domains. But source type split reveals the structural issue: 188 advocacy or other sources vs. 59 media, 9 government, 5 academic. Top source domains include hindutvaharassmentfieldmanual.org (SASAC/HfHR, 11×), bridge.georgetown.edu (Bridge Initiative, 9×), iamc.com (Indian American Muslim Council, 7×), wearesavera.org (Savera coalition, 5×), hindusforhumanrights.org (6×). These organizations have pre-existing adversarial relationships with the organizations being investigated. Using their characterizations of the subjects as independent evidence is a source independence problem.
Heavy reliance on advocacy secondary sources rather than primary documentation
hinduamerican.org cited 14 times — the subject organization's own published statements are the most appropriate primary source for an investigation report. nytimes.com (11×) and other media provide credible secondary documentation. However 188 advocacy sources means that a significant portion of the report's evidentiary base consists of other organizations' characterizations of the subjects rather than the subjects' own record. No verification tier system applied; all 261 sources treated as equivalently probative.
Authors not individually named; conflict of interest not disclosed
Funding disclosure present — a positive signal. Rutgers CSRR as institutional home provides governance credibility. However individual authors are not named in the document (structure audit finds no named authors). No conflict of interest statement despite the report's coalition sourcing structure: SASAC and Savera — organizations whose members have documented adversarial relationships with the report's subjects — are cited extensively without disclosure of that relationship.
No limitations section; counter-arguments framed as bad faith
No limitations section. The report's section heading 'Reframing Criticism of Hindu Ethnonationalism as Hinduphobia' characterizes the primary counter-argument — that some critiques of Hindu communities constitute anti-Hindu bias — as a bad-faith rhetorical move rather than engaging the substantive question of where the line between bias documentation and bias production lies. HAF's, CoHNA's, and VHPA's substantive responses to the characterizations made in the report are not engaged.
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: Evidence of global Hindu nationalist threat
Established scope: Investigation of specific US advocacy organizations — scope does not extend to global Hindu nationalism or Indian political actors
Citations presenting this report as evidence of 'global Hindutva threat' constitute severe scope escalation. The report covers US-based organizations and does not establish claims about global Hindu nationalist coordination.
Claimed scope: Documentation of Hindu extremism in corporate environments
Established scope: Investigation of specific advocacy organizations — does not establish claims about Hindu employees or employee resource groups
If cited to characterize Hindu employee resource groups or inform HR policy about Hindu employees, this represents significant scope escalation from organizational investigation to group characterization.