Score Trends
Patterns across the scored reports: which methods hold up, where reports often fall short, and how citation problems spread.
Trend Explorer
Scores over time, weak spots, organizations, and citation loopsMain pattern
The same weak spots show up again and again.
Across 44 scored reports, the pattern is about method, not whether CID agrees with a report. 35 reports land in Deficient, Advocacy-Grade, or Unreliable. Verification falls below the level needed for Research-Grade in 43 cases.
Weakest area
D8: Counter-Evidence
Average 3.9 across 44 scored reports.
Strongest area
D7: Transparency & Governance
Average 6.1 across the scored reports.
Citation loops
4 documented loops
Tracked by when they start, how many reports use them, and which score areas they hurt.
By year
Average score by report year
Each bar shows the average score for reports published that year. The n label shows how many reports we have for that year.
Distribution
Where reports land
35 reports fall in Deficient or Advocacy-Grade.
Repeated problems
Repeated warning flags
Same warning text appearing across multiple scored reports.
Chapter Level Scoring
Scored as standalone TYPE 7 chapter. Methodology, definitions, and data availability exist at parent document level but are absent from this chapter.
Zero External Citations
Chapter contains zero external source citations. All factual claims rest on Freedom House analyst judgment without attribution.
Index Construction Active
Conditional Module activated. FitW produces composite country rankings from 25 scored indicators.
No Icr Data
No inter-coder reliability data published despite multi-analyst scoring process.
No Sensitivity Analysis
No published sensitivity analysis of rankings under alternative indicator weighting.
Opaque Index Methodology
CPC designation criteria operationalized through Commissioner judgment without published decision rules, indicator weights, sensitivity analysis, or robustness checks. The ranking system's formula is undocumented.
Statutory Without Operational
IRFA framework referenced but not operationalized into replicable assessment criteria. Political characterization terms used editorially without decision rules.
Unoperationalized Statutory Criteria
IRFA defines 'particularly severe' violations with enumerated examples, but 'systematic,' 'ongoing,' and 'egregious' — the adjectives distinguishing CPC from Watch List from unlisted — are never operationalized into decision rules or thresholds.