{
  "items": [
    {
      "anti_bias": "Small or sanctioned states are not automatically punished when popular reserve, institutional repair or sovereign acceleration is visible.",
      "dimensions": [
        "stock of capability",
        "trajectory",
        "resilience",
        "evidence strength",
        "popular reserve separated from state score"
      ],
      "id": "method-state-capability",
      "outputs": [
        "state dashboard",
        "country pack",
        "policy brief"
      ],
      "purpose": "Measure public capability, trajectory and resilience without confusing state performance with popular reserve.",
      "title": "State sovereign capability score"
    },
    {
      "anti_bias": "Well-funded institutions are not inflated by prestige alone. Less-funded structures are not penalized when they build real capability.",
      "dimensions": [
        "architecture building",
        "field defining contribution",
        "useful output",
        "capability transfer",
        "public-service impact",
        "evidence strength"
      ],
      "id": "method-university-fitness",
      "outputs": [
        "university ranking",
        "specialty view",
        "evidence needs"
      ],
      "purpose": "Measure civilizational contribution, field definition, useful output and transferability rather than imported prestige or funding alone.",
      "title": "University sovereign fitness score"
    },
    {
      "anti_bias": "Scores should not punish disagreement. They evaluate documented public impact, mechanisms and outputs.",
      "dimensions": [
        "sovereign output",
        "discourse-action consistency",
        "institution building",
        "capture-risk signals",
        "public influence",
        "evidence strength"
      ],
      "id": "method-actor-contribution-risk",
      "outputs": [
        "actor profiles",
        "threat actor profiles",
        "correction pathway"
      ],
      "purpose": "Separate constructive sovereignty contribution from dependency, capture, grievance inversion and harmful normalization.",
      "title": "Actor contribution and capture-risk score"
    },
    {
      "anti_bias": "Ordinary citizens and diasporas are not treated as state actors. Public claims must separate documented events, allegations and pattern inference.",
      "dimensions": [
        "military/security pressure",
        "economic/resource pressure",
        "information/psychological pressure",
        "health/biosecurity pressure",
        "legal/diplomatic pressure",
        "civilian-protection impact",
        "evidence integrity"
      ],
      "id": "method-hostile-country-risk",
      "outputs": [
        "state actor profiles",
        "country pack",
        "risk briefing"
      ],
      "purpose": "Measure recurring external pressure patterns affecting African safety, security, resources, institutions, information and future capability.",
      "title": "State actor / hostile-country risk score"
    },
    {
      "anti_bias": "Alignment means observed editorial orientation, not secret control, guilt or affiliation.",
      "dimensions": [
        "ownership/funding transparency",
        "African source density",
        "correction discipline",
        "sovereignty framing quality",
        "narrative-capture risk",
        "public influence"
      ],
      "id": "method-media-alignment",
      "outputs": [
        "media landscape",
        "knowledge index",
        "library categories"
      ],
      "purpose": "Assess public-information usefulness, editorial orientation, source density, correction discipline and narrative-capture risk.",
      "title": "Media and knowledge-source trust score"
    },
    {
      "anti_bias": "The module does not declare guilt. It structures reviewable evidence for constitutional, parliamentary, judicial, civic or expert review.",
      "dimensions": [
        "safety compromised",
        "security compromised",
        "health compromised",
        "economic sovereignty compromised",
        "constitutional order compromised",
        "knowledge/data sovereignty compromised",
        "evidence strength"
      ],
      "id": "method-capability-compromise",
      "outputs": [
        "impeachment indicators",
        "policy brief",
        "high-risk dossier"
      ],
      "purpose": "Structure constitutional accountability review when public decisions may compromise safety, health, security, economic sovereignty, data sovereignty or constitutional order.",
      "title": "Impeachment / high-treason capability-compromise test"
    }
  ],
  "schema": "paso-methodology-pack-v1"
}