Purpose
The Algorism Index is a public behavioural accountability framework that evaluates the documented, verifiable actions of institutions and public figures against the Six Principles of Algorism.
It exists because the powerful are rarely held to the same behavioural standard they impose on others. Credit scoring evaluates ordinary people. Hiring algorithms filter applicants. Content moderation polices speech. But the institutions and individuals who design, deploy, and profit from these systems face no equivalent evaluation. The Index applies the same framework upward that is already being applied downward.
The Six Principles
Every evaluation scores the subject against these six principles, applied consistently regardless of political orientation, industry, or geography.
| # | Principle | Definition | Institutional Application |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Truthfulness | Tell the truth, even when it costs you. | Are public statements consistent with internal documents and observed actions? |
| 2 | Responsibility | Own your actions and the results. | Does the institution acknowledge harm, or deflect to abstract forces? |
| 3 | Repair | Fix the harm you cause. | When harm is documented, does the institution take corrective action or issue statements without structural change? |
| 4 | Contribution | Create value for others. | Does the institution create net value for stakeholders, or extract value while externalising costs? |
| 5 | Discipline | Keep your standards when tested. | Does the institution maintain standards under competitive pressure or public criticism? |
| 6 | Integrity | Think for yourself. Act coherently. | Does the institution act consistently with its stated values, or abandon them when inconvenient? |
Each principle is scored 0–5 for the specific action under evaluation, with documented reasoning. There is no single composite score. Multi-axis evaluation prevents oversimplification and resists gaming.
Evaluation Process
1. Subject Selection
Subjects are selected based on public salience, documentation quality, and relevance to AI governance, institutional power, or systemic behavioural patterns. Initial evaluations focus on institutions. Public figure evaluations begin only after the methodology has been tested through institutional evaluations.
2. Evidence Collection
All evidence must be publicly verifiable: official statements, regulatory filings, court documents, investigative journalism, public financial records, published research. Each claim cites at least one primary source. Where sources conflict, conflicting accounts are noted.
3. Scoring
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | Active violation. Action directly contradicts the principle. |
| 1 | Significant failure. Pattern of neglect or disregard. |
| 2 | Below standard. Some effort but significant gaps remain. |
| 3 | Adequate. Meets baseline expectations. |
| 4 | Strong. Consistent alignment. Proactive effort. |
| 5 | Exemplary. Demonstrates the principle under pressure. |
4. Repair Path
Every evaluation includes specific, concrete actions the subject could take to improve. The Index is not just “here is what you did wrong” but “here is what right looks like.”
5. Right of Reply
Before publication, the subject is notified and given the opportunity to respond. Responses are published alongside the evaluation, unedited.
Output: The Pattern Brief
Each evaluation is published as a structured Pattern Brief designed for journalists, investors, employees, procurement officers, and the public.
Pattern Risk Categories
For quick reference, evaluations include simplified A/B/C grades for relevant pattern risks.
| Pattern Risk | Definition | Related Principles |
|---|---|---|
| Truth Decay | Systematically misrepresents reality through false statements, manufactured consensus, or censorship. | Truthfulness, Integrity |
| Accountability Void | Deflects responsibility to abstract forces, market conditions, or subordinates. | Responsibility, Repair |
| Extraction Pattern | Extracts value while externalising costs to workers, communities, or ecosystems. | Contribution, Repair |
| Standards Erosion | Abandons stated standards under competitive pressure or political convenience. | Discipline, Integrity |
| Capture Risk | Governance captured by narrow interest group overriding broader stakeholder interests. | Integrity, Contribution |
Credibility Safeguards
Against Partisan Capture
The Six Principles are politically neutral. Every evaluation praises where warranted and criticises where warranted, regardless of political alignment.
Against Gaming
No single composite score. Multi-axis evaluation prevents optimising one number while neglecting others. No paid ratings, no sponsored evaluations.
Against Authoritarian Misuse
The Index evaluates actions, not beliefs. The Repair Path makes it constructive. All assessments are inspectable, contestable, and subject to abstention under uncertainty.
Against Scope Creep
Only publicly documented and verifiable actions. If evidence is insufficient, the evaluation states “insufficient evidence” rather than forcing a verdict.
What the Index is not: Not a social credit system (applies upward, not downward). Not a court (no penalties or legal process). Not journalism (adds structured evaluation to documented facts). Not surveillance (uses only public information). Not a moral authority (publishes reasoning; readers decide).
Publication Protocol
Source verification: Every claim cites at least one primary source.
Steelman clause: Every evaluation includes the strongest plausible defence.
Fact/inference/judgment separation: The evidence dossier clearly labels each.
Right of reply: Subjects are contacted before publication where feasible.
Corrections SLA: Factual errors corrected within 72 hours, visibly timestamped.
Open methodology: This document is published in full. Anyone can apply the framework independently. The Index is reproducible by design.
Version 1.0 • March 2026 • This methodology is free to reproduce in its entirety with credit to Algorism.org.