A GII value is publishable only when a reviewer can move backward from it to the evidence, and only after it clears review. This is the governance layer that turns a reproducible release into a public, challengeable, correctable dossier: the review gate, the eligibility conditions, the corrections policy, and the public-challenge process — the beta release template, challenge process, and correction policy.
The tables below are rendered live from @gii/governance.
Review roles#
Every release is reviewed for six concerns. Automation accelerates collection and screening; accountable reviewers approve legal scope, causal claims, and orientation. A high-impact release or a change to scoring methodology needs at least one independent methods review and one independent substantive review.
| Role | Primary responsibility | Blocking examples |
|---|---|---|
| legal substantive | Instrument, authority, status, holding, scope, later treatment. | Wrong operative text; Stay ignored; Jurisdiction misstated |
| data substantive | Source fitness, definitions, revisions, linkage, missingness. | Denominator mismatch; Unstable series; Untracked revision |
| methods methods | Counterfactual, estimand, model, diagnostics, uncertainty. | Invalid comparison; Confounding; Incorrect estimator |
| domain substantive | Mechanism, outcome map, orientation, stakeholder context. | Wrong benefit/burden rule; Omitted material pathway |
| editorial process | Claims, readability, caveats, cross-output consistency. | Causal overstatement; Misleading headline; Inconsistent values |
| release process | Versioning, files, API, provenance, correction plan. | Nonreproducible build; Missing source manifest |
Publication eligibility#
An observed decision dossier may publish an observed headline score only when all ten conditions hold. If any fails, GII publishes a registry entry, forecast, descriptive note, or withhold notice instead — none carrying an observed headline. Withholding is a successful control, not a failure.
- The authoritative event and operative status are verified.
- Implementation and exposure are demonstrated.
- A theory of change and a preregistered outcome map exist.
- At least one direct stakeholder outcome is observed.
- The counterfactual and estimator meet the evidence standard.
- Required coverage is met.
- Overlap and transfer checks are resolved.
- Uncertainty and limitations are disclosed.
- Review gates are passed.
- The release is reproducible from its package.
Corrections & revisions#
A minor presentation correction may retain the analytic version with an errata timestamp. Any change to estimates, scores, causal claims, scope, or operative status creates a new analytic version. Prior releases remain retrievable and visibly superseded. These triggers open a revision:
| Trigger | Description |
|---|---|
| data-revision | Corrected or benchmark-revised official data. |
| new-outcome-period | New outcome periods or exposure evidence. |
| court-treatment | Court stays, mandates, appeals, or later treatment. |
| statutory-amendment | Statutory or regulatory amendment, expiration, or rescission. |
| discovered-error | Discovered source, code, classification, or aggregation error. |
| improved-design | Improved causal design or materially different model. |
| revised-standard | Revised outcome-orientation or weighting standard. |
| new-overlap | Newly identified overlap with another lineage. |
Methodology versioning
- major — A change that breaks comparability: a new primary construct or fundamentally different aggregation.
- minor — A backward-compatible addition: a new domain module or published robustness view.
- patch — A clarification, nonbreaking correction, or implementation repair.
Appeals & public challenges#
A structured challenge corrects evidence and methodology; it is not a vote on whether a policy should be liked. Each one must identify five things and receives a tracking ID and a reasoned disposition. Submit one through the challenge portal.
| Disposition | Meaning |
|---|---|
| accepted | The disputed claim is corrected; a revision follows. |
| partially-accepted | Some of the requested change is adopted, with reasons for the remainder. |
| rejected | The claim stands; the reason is recorded. |
| pending-evidence | Held open awaiting the evidence needed to evaluate it. |
| outside-scope | Not an evidence or methodology dispute (e.g. a preference for a different policy). |
Independence & conflicts#
Funding, data access, reviewer relationships, and affiliations that could affect an analysis are disclosed. A sponsor may identify questions but may not suppress an eligible result or privately alter a published rule. The scoring codebook, release criteria, and correction protocol are public before politically salient production scoring begins. The PEPI first-party relationship is disclosed and mitigated structurally: PEPI values never enter GII scores.
Machine-readable at GET /api/v1/governance, or via gii governance.