Method and Data
How the engine turns inputs into scores, ranks reforms and simulates outcomes. Nothing here is hidden: every number the app shows comes from the formulas and settings below.
What comes from where
- From the three master documents: the white papers, the stress systems and their definitions, the nine axes, and all 30 reform blueprints with their policy actions, shown verbatim.
- An illustrative model: the input metrics and their weights, the reform effect sizes, the 12 sample entities and their reform statuses. These are settings for demonstrating the engine, not measurements.
- Sample entities are fictional. No real organization is scored on this site.
1. Stress Scoring Engine
Each raw input is placed on a 0–100 stress scale between its stated minimum and maximum. For inputs where more is better (generic usage, prevention spend, narrative plurality and so on), the scale is reversed so 100 always means the most stress.
stress = (value − min) ÷ (max − min) × 100, reversed when higher is better
Each axis score and the poison score are weighted averages of the stress values that feed them. The antidote score is the weighted average of (100 − stress) for its inputs, so it rises as stress falls.
2. Reform Matching Engine
For one entity, the engine simulates each reform by itself and adds up how far it moves the scores: axis relief and poison reduction count downward movement, antidote gain counts upward movement. That total is the impact potential, and reforms are ranked by it. Higher current activation leaves more room to move, so the same reform ranks differently for different entities.
3. Simulation Engine
Reform effects compound with diminishing returns, so scores always stay between 0 and 100:
- axis after = axis × (1 − relief₁) × (1 − relief₂) × …
- poison after = poison × (1 − reduction₁) × (1 − reduction₂) × …
- antidote after = 100 − (100 − antidote) × (1 − gap closed₁) × …
A reform already implemented by an entity is part of its current inputs, so the simulator won't apply it a second time.
Input metrics and weights
Healthcare: Cellular Stress
| Metric | Range | Direction | Feeds (weight) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chronic disease prevalence Share of adults served living with one or more chronic diseases. | 20–80 % of adults served | Higher is worse | RAAS ×1, HPAA ×1, PMIA ×1, poison ×1 |
| Hypertension rate RAAS proxy: adults with high blood pressure. | 15–60 % of adults served | Higher is worse | RAAS ×3 |
| Chronic stress load HPAA proxy: composite of sleep loss, shift work and self-reported stress (cortisol stand-in). | 0–100 index 0–100 | Higher is worse | HPAA ×3 |
| Elevated inflammatory markers PMIA proxy: adults with elevated CRP or similar markers. | 10–60 % of tested adults | Higher is worse | PMIA ×3 |
| Generic drug usage Cheap, effective metabolic generics used rather than delayed. | 50–98 % of prescriptions | Higher is better | poison ×2, antidote ×2 |
| Prevention share of spend Prevention versus intervention spending. | 0–20 % of total spend | Higher is better | poison ×2, antidote ×3 |
| Downstream care margin Operating margin earned on downstream sick-care. | 0–15 % operating margin | Higher is worse | poison ×3 |
“poison” is Greed; “antidote” is Mercy. Effect sizes for each Healthcare reform.
Justice: Identity Stress
| Metric | Range | Direction | Feeds (weight) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political polarization Affective polarization among constituents. | 0–100 index 0–100 | Higher is worse | PTA ×3, poison ×2 |
| Bias incidents Reported bias-motivated incidents. | 0–30 per 100k people | Higher is worse | PTA ×1, CNA ×1, poison ×2 |
| Income inequality Income concentration across the population served. | 0.25–0.6 Gini coefficient | Higher is worse | ESA ×3, poison ×1 |
| Poverty rate Economic precarity in the population served. | 5–35 % of population | Higher is worse | ESA ×2 |
| Narrative plurality How many communities see their history and voice represented. | 0–100 index 0–100 | Higher is better | CNA ×3, antidote ×2 |
| Community integration spend Upstream integration and trauma-healing investment versus conflict management. | 0–10 % of budget | Higher is better | poison ×2, antidote ×3 |
“poison” is Hatred; “antidote” is Charity. Effect sizes for each Justice reform.
Acceptance: Existential Stress
| Metric | Range | Direction | Feeds (weight) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doctrinal gatekeeping Exclusionary rules on who may belong, lead or speak. | 0–100 index 0–100 | Higher is worse | SHA ×3, poison ×2 |
| Leadership concentration How much leadership is held by a single dominant group. | 40–100 % of leadership from one group | Higher is worse | SHA ×1, CSA ×2, poison ×2 |
| Minority culture recognition Minority cultures represented in programs, calendars and history. | 0–100 index 0–100 | Higher is better | CSA ×2, antidote ×2 |
| Dissent tolerance Room for disagreement without exclusion or punishment. | 0–100 index 0–100 | Higher is better | IPA ×3, antidote ×1 |
| Disability access parity Participation of disabled and neurodivergent people on equal terms. | 0–100 index 0–100 | Higher is better | IPA ×1, poison ×1, antidote ×2 |
| Interfaith and intercultural engagement Programs shared with other traditions and cultures. | 0–30 % of programs | Higher is better | SHA ×1, antidote ×2 |
“poison” is Pride; “antidote” is Inclusion. Effect sizes for each Acceptance reform.
Data and API
All data ships with the site and the engine runs in the browser, so every page is prerendered to plain HTML and needs no server. The data service mirrors the planned API resources (entities, stress profiles, reforms, simulations), so a REST or GraphQL backend with Viewer, Analyst and Admin roles can replace it later without touching the pages.