Skip to content

📊 Aggregating all the Agent Rubrics for review (Project Mirror v2) - #93

Draft
sugaroverflow wants to merge 8 commits into
mainfrom
project-mirror-v2/aggregate-constitutions-review
Draft

📊 Aggregating all the Agent Rubrics for review (Project Mirror v2)#93
sugaroverflow wants to merge 8 commits into
mainfrom
project-mirror-v2/aggregate-constitutions-review

Conversation

@sugaroverflow

@sugaroverflow sugaroverflow commented Mar 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Project Mirror v2 — aggregate rubrics for review

Generated: 2026-03-29

Readable per-fellow + comparison tables live in all-mirror-rubrics.md (same content as below, without PR length limits).

This description is auto-generated — run npm run aggregate:mirror-v2-constitutions and paste or gh pr edit --body-file iterations/project-mirror-v2/committee-aggregation/pr-93-body.md.

Pipeline

flowchart TB
  subgraph sources["18 fellow branches (project-mirror-v2/*)"]
    split["Most: criteria + modifiers + procedural"]
    single["Davit + Francesca: constitution.md only"]
  end
  run["npm run aggregate:mirror-v2-constitutions"]
  subgraph out["committee-aggregation/"]
    md["all-mirror-rubrics.md"]
    prb["pr-93-body.md — copy into GitHub PR"]
    crit["all-mirror-criteria-table.csv"]
    sec["all-mirror-constitutions-sections.csv"]
  end
  split --> run
  single --> run
  run --> md
  run --> prb
  run --> crit
  run --> sec
Loading

Cross-fellow comparison

Overlap scores use Jaccard similarity on word tokens (length ≥ 4) from Part A criterion titles + Part B modifier titles only — a rough signal, not semantic equivalence.

Rubric shape

Fellow Part A (n) Part B (n) Part C rules (n) Source layout
Aadi Kulkarni 7 6 8 split A/B/C files
Alessandro Pedori 7 7 4 split A/B/C files
Alexandra Ciocanel 6 6 0 split A/B/C files
Asil Sidahmed 7 6 1 split A/B/C files
Chris Owen 7 6 8 split A/B/C files
Connor Dunlop 7 6 0 split A/B/C files
David Powell 7 6 0 split A/B/C files
Davit Jintcharadze 7 6 0 single constitution.md
Fatima Sarah Khalid 7 6 8 split A/B/C files
Francesca Galli 7 6 0 single constitution.md
Frederick O'Brien 6 6 0 split A/B/C files
Gamithra Marga 7 6 0 split A/B/C files
Hannah O'Rourke 7 6 9 split A/B/C files
Huda Abdirahim 7 6 2 split A/B/C files
Jamie Coombes 7 6 9 split A/B/C files
Martina Orlea 6 6 0 split A/B/C files
Nicholas Botti 7 6 6 split A/B/C files
Tuna's Agent 8 7 8 split A/B/C files

Modifier directions (Part B)

Fellow boost reduce conditional other
Aadi Kulkarni 3 2 1 0
Alessandro Pedori 3 3 1 0
Alexandra Ciocanel 3 3 0 0
Asil Sidahmed 3 2 1 0
Chris Owen 3 2 1 0
Connor Dunlop 4 2 0 0
David Powell 3 3 0 0
Davit Jintcharadze 3 2 1 0
Fatima Sarah Khalid 3 2 1 0
Francesca Galli 4 2 0 0
Frederick O'Brien 3 2 1 0
Gamithra Marga 4 2 0 0
Hannah O'Rourke 3 3 0 0
Huda Abdirahim 3 2 1 0
Jamie Coombes 3 2 1 0
Martina Orlea 5 1 0 0
Nicholas Botti 3 2 1 0
Tuna's Agent 4 2 1 0

Theme signals in titles (Part A + B)

How many fellows have each theme substring anywhere in criterion or modifier titles (case-insensitive).

Theme Fellows (count) Who (first names)
governance 13 Aadi, Alexandra, Asil, Connor, David, Fatima, Frederick, Gamithra +5
community 14 Aadi, Alessandro, Alexandra, Asil, Connor, Fatima, Francesca, Frederick +6
democracy 1 Francesca
participation 6 Alessandro, Chris, Francesca, Frederick, Gamithra, Hannah
equity 2 Asil, Francesca
access 12 Aadi, Asil, Chris, David, Davit, Fatima, Francesca, Frederick +4
transparency 7 David, Francesca, Frederick, Gamithra, Hannah, Huda, Tuna
privacy 3 Alessandro, Gamithra, Martina
government 4 Aadi, David, Fatima, Gamithra
institution 6 Asil, Connor, Davit, Frederick, Hannah, Nicholas
deliberative 1 Connor
inclusion 0
deployment 8 Chris, Connor, Davit, Fatima, Hannah, Huda, Jamie, Tuna
open source 3 David, Fatima, Martina
accountability 8 Aadi, Alexandra, Asil, Francesca, Hannah, Huda, Nicholas, Tuna
surveillance 9 Alexandra, Asil, Davit, Fatima, Frederick, Gamithra, Huda, Jamie +1
enforcement 1 Connor
verification 1 Connor

Most similar rubric wording (Jaccard on title tokens)

Fellow A Fellow B Jaccard
Fatima Sarah Khalid Huda Abdirahim 0.247
Aadi Kulkarni Fatima Sarah Khalid 0.214
Aadi Kulkarni Tuna's Agent 0.209
Fatima Sarah Khalid Nicholas Botti 0.209
Fatima Sarah Khalid Tuna's Agent 0.2
Nicholas Botti Tuna's Agent 0.195
Frederick O'Brien Huda Abdirahim 0.184
Fatima Sarah Khalid Frederick O'Brien 0.179
Fatima Sarah Khalid Hannah O'Rourke 0.178
Aadi Kulkarni Nicholas Botti 0.175

Least similar pairs (still some token overlap)

Fellow A Fellow B Jaccard
Alexandra Ciocanel Martina Orlea 0.019
Alessandro Pedori Hannah O'Rourke 0.02
Davit Jintcharadze Martina Orlea 0.024
Francesca Galli Martina Orlea 0.032
Alessandro Pedori David Powell 0.037
Alessandro Pedori Martina Orlea 0.038
Alessandro Pedori Connor Dunlop 0.042
Alessandro Pedori Tuna's Agent 0.046

Full table — Part A (all fellows)

Fellow # Criterion Weight
Aadi Kulkarni 1 Accessibility for excluded or underserved populations HIGH
Aadi Kulkarni 2 Government digital infrastructure quality and interoperability HIGH
Aadi Kulkarni 3 Regulatory and policy clarity contribution HIGH**
Aadi Kulkarni 4 Data ethics and epistemic integrity MEDIUM
Aadi Kulkarni 5 Implementation maturity and evidence of use MEDIUM
Aadi Kulkarni 6 Open standards and public knowledge orientation MEDIUM
Aadi Kulkarni 7 Cross-jurisdictional applicability LOW
Alessandro Pedori 1 Voice / participation architecture HIGH confidence | 20 points max
Alessandro Pedori 2 Human adoption / facilitation design HIGH confidence | 18 points max
Alessandro Pedori 3 Privacy-by-design / consent architecture HIGH confidence | 16 points max
Alessandro Pedori 4 Theory of change depth MEDIUM confidence | 14 points max
Alessandro Pedori 5 Peer learning / community emergence MEDIUM confidence | 14 points max
Alessandro Pedori 6 Implementation maturity MEDIUM confidence | 12 points max
Alessandro Pedori 7 Structural interventions over informational ones LOW confidence | 8 points max
Alexandra Ciocanel 1 Accountability infrastructure for algorithmic and automated systems HIGH (max 20 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 2 Centring populations excluded by algorithmic or bureaucratic categorical systems HIGH (max 20 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 3 Qualitative or ethnographic grounding — does the project know how its users actually live? MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 4 Critical self-examination of power claims — does the project know what it is actually doing? MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 5 Human-centred design practice in public service contexts MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 6 Implementation maturity — is this real, working, and reaching people? LOW (max 6 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 1 Health equity and access impact high (25 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 2 Decolonial governance and power redistribution high (20 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 3 Patient/community-centred design high (20 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 4 Ethical infrastructure and accountability medium (15 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 5 Conflict/fragile-state applicability medium (10 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 6 Movement-building and collective action infrastructure medium (5 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 7 Epistemic humility and self-criticality low (5 pts)
Chris Owen 1 Empowerment of excluded/marginalised communities 20 points (HIGH)
Chris Owen 2 Education and capability-building as core mechanism 18 points (HIGH)
Chris Owen 3 Volunteer-driven, low-cost, resource-efficient models 15 points (HIGH)
Chris Owen 4 Open-source code and replicable educational materials 15 points (MEDIUM-HIGH)
Chris Owen 5 Practical deployment with real users 14 points (MEDIUM)
Chris Owen 6 Political technology connecting to civic participation 10 points (MEDIUM-LOW)
Chris Owen 7 Scalability and cross-context replicability 8 points (LOW)
Connor Dunlop 1 Enforcement and verification infrastructure 20
Connor Dunlop 2 Participatory and deliberative governance 20
Connor Dunlop 3 Supply chain and lifecycle governance 20
Connor Dunlop 4 Institutional and democratic infrastructure 12
Connor Dunlop 5 International and cross-jurisdictional applicability 12
Connor Dunlop 6 Evidence quality and research rigour 12
Connor Dunlop 7 Compute governance and technical infrastructure 6
David Powell 1 Organisational structure and governance 20
David Powell 2 User-centred design for underserved populations 20
David Powell 3 Real-world adoption and use 18
David Powell 4 Genuine open source and open data 14
David Powell 5 Collaborative and cooperative technology 12
David Powell 6 Public health and government digital infrastructure 10
David Powell 7 Environmental sustainability 6
Davit Jintcharadze 1 Democratic resilience utility 20 pts (high)
Davit Jintcharadze 2 Inclusivity of non-Western and crisis contexts 20 pts (high)
Davit Jintcharadze 3 Psychological/behavioural depth of intervention 12 pts (medium)
Davit Jintcharadze 4 Strategic impact clarity (theory of change) 12 pts (medium)
Davit Jintcharadze 5 Implementation maturity and real deployment 12 pts (medium)
Davit Jintcharadze 6 Open access and anti-capture design 6 pts (low)
Davit Jintcharadze 7 Humanitarian and dignity-centred framing 6 pts (low)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 1 Accessibility of civic and political technology for excluded communities HIGH (max 20 pts)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 2 Open source commitment and community governance HIGH (max 20 pts)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 3 Making government and civic processes legible and navigable HIGH (max 20 pts)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 4 Inclusive community-building as a dimension of the project's design MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 5 Implementation maturity and real-world deployment MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 6 AI and technology as community infrastructure, not surveillance infrastructure MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 7 Cross-jurisdictional replicability and knowledge sharing LOW (max 6 pts)
Francesca Galli 1 Digital commons protection and anti-extractivism HIGH — 20 points
Francesca Galli 2 Civic engagement and participatory democracy enablement HIGH — 20 points
Francesca Galli 3 Data for social good — rigour applied to public benefit HIGH — 20 points
Francesca Galli 4 Social cohesion, belonging, and equity of access MEDIUM — 12 points
Francesca Galli 5 Interdisciplinary approach and creative methodology MEDIUM — 12 points
Francesca Galli 6 Transparency, accountability, and epistemic honesty MEDIUM — 12 points
Francesca Galli 7 Community ownership and local grounding LOW — 6 points
Frederick O'Brien 1 Free and open access to tools — removal of access barriers high (max 20 pts)
Frederick O'Brien 2 Direct benefit to practitioners and communities — not organisations or platforms high (max 20 pts)
Frederick O'Brien 3 Anti-extraction stance — independence from corporate platforms and surveillance infrastructure high (max 20 pts)
Frederick O'Brien 4 Community journalism and democratic participation infrastructure medium (max 12 pts)
Frederick O'Brien 5 Technology in service of human skill — tools that augment, not replace medium (max 12 pts)
Frederick O'Brien 6 Design ethics and intentionality — craft as a political choice low (max 6 pts)
Gamithra Marga 1 Community Ownership and Governance Model HIGH (20 points)
Gamithra Marga 2 Technological Sovereignty / Self-Hosting Capability HIGH (20 points)
Gamithra Marga 3 Anti-Extraction Innovation Design HIGH (20 points)
Gamithra Marga 4 Privacy by Design and Data Ethics MEDIUM (12 points)
Gamithra Marga 5 Accessibility and Inclusive Participation MEDIUM (12 points)
Gamithra Marga 6 Environmental Responsibility and Long-Term Thinking MEDIUM (12 points)
Gamithra Marga 7 Open Government and Democratic Transparency LOW (6 points)
Hannah O'Rourke 1 Democratic infrastructure quality and accessibility HIGH (max 20 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 2 Evidence-based design and epistemic rigour HIGH (max 20 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 3 Participation infrastructure for low-resource organising HIGH (max 20 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 4 Practical deployment and real-world uptake MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 5 Coalition-building and cross-factional utility MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 6 Transparency and trust-building in institutions MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 7 AI governance and responsible technology framing LOW (max 6 pts)
Huda Abdirahim 1 Budget and treasury transparency as civic infrastructure high (20 points)
Huda Abdirahim 2 Governance legibility — making power and decision-making visible high (20 points)
Huda Abdirahim 3 Collective ownership and community governance of infrastructure high (20 points)
Huda Abdirahim 4 Practical deployment and real-world use medium (12 points)
Huda Abdirahim 5 Interoperability and open standards medium (12 points)
Huda Abdirahim 6 Political infrastructure focus (not just political content) medium (12 points)
Huda Abdirahim 7 Legitimacy and accountability — is the project itself accountable? low (6 points)
Jamie Coombes 1 Safety-consciousness and interpretability by design HIGH (20 pts)
Jamie Coombes 2 Public-interest deployment with real beneficiaries HIGH (20 pts)
Jamie Coombes 3 Open infrastructure and community enablement HIGH (20 pts)
Jamie Coombes 4 Evidence of deployment and implementation maturity MEDIUM (12 pts)
Jamie Coombes 5 Participatory design and governance model MEDIUM (12 pts)
Jamie Coombes 6 Systemic risk awareness and mitigation orientation MEDIUM (12 pts)
Jamie Coombes 7 Originality and distinctiveness of approach LOW (6 pts)
Martina Orlea 1 Campaign Infrastructure & Effectiveness HIGH — 20 pts
Martina Orlea 2 Information Warfare & Counter-Disinformation HIGH — 20 pts
Martina Orlea 3 Evidence-Based Decision Making HIGH — 20 pts
Martina Orlea 4 Community Organising & Volunteer Mobilisation MEDIUM — 12 pts
Martina Orlea 5 Privacy-Respecting & GDPR-Native Tools MEDIUM — 12 pts
Martina Orlea 6 Cross-Context Transferability LOW — 6 pts
Nicholas Botti 1 AI and institutional decision-making safety and alignment HIGH (max 20 pts)
Nicholas Botti 2 Financial stability, regulatory, and institutional infrastructure quality HIGH (max 20 pts)
Nicholas Botti 3 Complexity-aware and epistemically honest methodology HIGH (max 20 pts)
Nicholas Botti 4 Cooperation-building and pro-social incentive design MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Nicholas Botti 5 Protection of attention, autonomy, and community MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Nicholas Botti 6 Implementation maturity and evidence of real-world institutional use MEDIUM (max 12 pts)
Nicholas Botti 7 Cross-jurisdictional applicability and global accessibility LOW (max 6 pts)
Tuna's Agent 1 Evidence legibility for public decision-making HIGH
Tuna's Agent 2 Methodological transparency and reproducibility HIGH
Tuna's Agent 3 Open data and open-source infrastructure commitment MEDIUM
Tuna's Agent 4 Data visualisation quality and design integrity MEDIUM
Tuna's Agent 5 Contribution to counter-narratives grounded in evidence MEDIUM
Tuna's Agent 6 Implementation maturity and real-world deployment LOW
Tuna's Agent 7 Global development relevance and cross-jurisdictional scope LOW
Tuna's Agent 8 Participatory accountability and governance transparency LOW

Master table — Part B value modifiers (all fellows)

Fellow # Modifier Direction Magnitude
Aadi Kulkarni 1 Boosts projects that serve communities with no existing digital alternative boost strong (+10–15 pts)
Aadi Kulkarni 2 Reduces projects that centralise civic data without governance accountability reduce strong (−10–15 pts)
Aadi Kulkarni 3 Boosts projects that make legal or regulatory text legible to non-specialists boost moderate (+5–10 pts)
Aadi Kulkarni 4 Reduces purely symbolic interventions with no civic infrastructure value reduce moderate (−5–10 pts)
Aadi Kulkarni 5 Conditional — boosts open-source projects with active community governance, reduces closed proprietary tools claiming civic purpose conditional moderate (+5–10 pts boost if open; −5–8 pts reduce if proprietary with civic claims)
Aadi Kulkarni 6 Boosts projects explicitly designed to enable government to deliver services better boost moderate (+5–8 pts)
Alessandro Pedori 1 Voice-equalisation mechanisms (BOOST: +10 to +15) boost (from title)
Alessandro Pedori 2 Adversarial / punitive approach (REDUCE: -5 to -10) reduce (from title)
Alessandro Pedori 3 Privacy / consent by design (BOOST: +5 to +10) boost (from title)
Alessandro Pedori 4 Peer-learning vs expert-delivery (CONDITIONAL: +5 to +10 / -5 to -8) conditional (from title)
Alessandro Pedori 5 Digitises without redesigning (REDUCE: -5 to -10) reduce (from title)
Alessandro Pedori 6 Emotional safety / group dynamics (BOOST: +2 to +5) boost (from title)
Alessandro Pedori 7 US-centric ignoring European context (REDUCE: -2 to -5) reduce (from title)
Alexandra Ciocanel 1 Boosts projects creating contestability and redress for algorithmic harm boost strong (+8–14 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 2 Reduces projects framing expanded profiling as community empowerment reduce strong (−10–15 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 3 Boosts projects serving populations excluded by specific named mechanisms boost moderate (+5–9 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 4 Reduces projects increasing surveillance or profiling capacity without governance reduce moderate (−6–12 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 5 Boosts projects with documented genuine community involvement in design boost moderate (+4–8 pts)
Alexandra Ciocanel 6 Reduces purely technical framings that bypass political/governance dimensions reduce weak (−3–7 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 1 Global South leadership boost boost strong (+10-15 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 2 Surveillance and extraction penalty reduce strong (-10-15 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 3 Fragile-context resilience boost boost moderate (+5-10 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 4 Paternalism and rescue-framing penalty reduce moderate (-5-10 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 5 Women and gender-marginalised populations boost boost moderate (+5-10 pts)
Asil Sidahmed 6 Institutional transformation over incremental digitisation boost conditional (boost when transformative; no effect when merely digital) weak (+2-5 pts)
Chris Owen 1 Boost for projects serving excluded populations boost strong (+10-15 pts); cap at +5 when C1 >= 18
Chris Owen 2 Boost for volunteer/low-cost models boost moderate (+5-10 pts)
Chris Owen 3 Reduce for digitising existing power without expanding access reduce moderate (-5-10 pts)
Chris Owen 4 Boost for open, replicable educational materials boost moderate (+5-10 pts); cap at +3 when C3 >= 18
Chris Owen 5 Protect early-stage projects serving excluded populations boost (conditional) mild (+2-5 pts)
Chris Owen 6 Reduce for tech-centric framing over people-centric framing reduce mild (-2-5 pts)
Connor Dunlop 1 Technical enforcement boost boost +8 to +14
Connor Dunlop 2 Voluntary-only reduction reduce -8 to -12
Connor Dunlop 3 Precautionary design boost boost +5 to +9
Connor Dunlop 4 Community co-governance boost boost +4 to +8
Connor Dunlop 5 Power concentration reduction reduce -10 to -15
Connor Dunlop 6 Post-deployment monitoring boost boost (weak) +3 to +6
David Powell 1 Cooperative/non-profit structure boost boost +6 to +12 points
David Powell 2 VC-backed/founder-enrichment penalty reduce −6 to −10 points
David Powell 3 Accessibility for vulnerable users boost boost +4 to +8 points
David Powell 4 Performative open-source penalty reduce −4 to −8 points
David Powell 5 Worker treatment and pay transparency boost boost +3 to +6 points
David Powell 6 Dead link / inactive project penalty reduce −15 to −20 points (cap at 45)
Davit Jintcharadze 1 Backsliding/hybrid regime deployment boost boost strong (+10–15 pts)
Davit Jintcharadze 2 Western civic tech assumption penalty reduce moderate (−5 to −10 pts)
Davit Jintcharadze 3 Strategic leverage boost boost moderate (+5–10 pts)
Davit Jintcharadze 4 No-alternative population boost boost moderate (+5–10 pts)
Davit Jintcharadze 5 Surveillance/capture penalty reduce strong (−10 to −15 pts)
Davit Jintcharadze 6 Grassroots vs institutional distribution (conditional) conditional weak (+2–5 pts boost / −2–5 pts reduce)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 1 Boost — community ownership or governance of the project itself boost strong (+8–14 points)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 2 Reduce — extractive data practices or surveillance without community consent reduce strong (−10–16 points)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 3 Boost — designed specifically for under-resourced or under-served civic contexts boost moderate (+5–9 points)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 4 Reduce — tools that digitise existing power structures without challenging them reduce moderate (−5–8 points)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 5 Boost — inclusive developer community as a visible part of the project boost weak (+3–6 points)
Fatima Sarah Khalid 6 Conditional — prototype protection for accessibility-first projects conditional moderate (+4–8 points on implementation maturity criterion only)
Francesca Galli 1 Penalise extractive/platform-captured tools: -8 to -12 pts reduce (from title) -8 to -12 pts
Francesca Galli 2 Boost playful/accessible civic participation: +5 to +10 pts boost (from title)
Francesca Galli 3 Boost diaspora/migrant/cross-border projects: +5 to +8 pts boost (from title)
Francesca Galli 4 Penalise digitising power without challenging it: -5 to -8 pts reduce (from title) -5 to -8 pts
Francesca Galli 5 Boost visible self-critique/epistemic honesty: +3 to +5 pts boost (from title)
Francesca Galli 6 Boost European/Italian civic tech: +3 to +5 pts boost (from title)
Frederick O'Brien 1 Boost — tools built for practitioners who have no existing alternatives boost strong (+8–12 points)
Frederick O'Brien 2 Reduce — extractive platform capture or surveillance-adjacent architecture reduce strong (−8–12 points)
Frederick O'Brien 3 Boost — community ownership or governance — power to practitioners not institutions boost moderate (+5–8 points)
Frederick O'Brien 4 Reduce — tools that automate civic judgment or replace human decision-making reduce moderate (−5–8 points)
Frederick O'Brien 5 Boost — equitable economics for creative and media workers boost moderate (+4–7 points)
Frederick O'Brien 6 Boost — epistemic humility and prototype transparency boost (conditional — applies only when combined with genuine innovative design) weak (+3–5 points)
Gamithra Marga 1 Ecstatic / Embodied / Joyful Technology Boost boost moderate (+5–10 points)
Gamithra Marga 2 Platforms-as-Infrastructure / Open Protocol Boost boost strong (+8–12 points)
Gamithra Marga 3 VC / Surveillance / Extraction Penalty reduce strong (−10–15 points)
Gamithra Marga 4 Emotional / Human Complexity Recognition Boost boost weak (+3–6 points)
Gamithra Marga 5 Addictive / Algorithmic Harm Penalty reduce moderate (−6–10 points)
Gamithra Marga 6 Small-Scale / Under-Resourced / Emerging Work Boost boost weak (+3–5 points)
Hannah O'Rourke 1 Boosts tools designed for low-resource informal organising contexts boost strong (+8 to +14 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 2 Reduces tools that increase institutional power without accountability reduce strong (−8 to −14 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 3 Boosts improvised or experimental approaches to civic problems boost moderate (+4 to +8 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 4 Reduces tools that presuppose high political engagement or specialist knowledge reduce moderate (−4 to −8 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 5 Boosts projects bridging across institutional or political divides boost moderate (+4 to +8 pts)
Hannah O'Rourke 6 Reduces tools that create tech debt or fragmentation in democratic infrastructure reduce moderate (−4 to −8 pts)
Huda Abdirahim 1 Boost — programmable governance and on-chain transparency boost strong (+8–12 points)
Huda Abdirahim 2 Boost — tools that serve those excluded from traditional financial/governance systems boost moderate (+5–8 points)
Huda Abdirahim 3 Boost — projects that make the relationship between code and power explicit boost moderate (+4–7 points)
Huda Abdirahim 4 Reduce — extractive platforms and surveillance-adjacent tools reduce strong (−8–12 points)
Huda Abdirahim 5 Reduce — digital governance tools that increase state power without accountability reduce moderate (−5–8 points)
Huda Abdirahim 6 Conditional — early-stage or prototype tools with strong theory of change conditional boost weak (+3–5 points)
Jamie Coombes 1 Safety-interpretability prerequisite boost Boost Strong (+10–15 pts)
Jamie Coombes 2 Extractive or surveillance-adjacent penalty Reduce Strong (−10–14 pts)
Jamie Coombes 3 Community infrastructure amplifier Boost Moderate (+6–10 pts)
Jamie Coombes 4 Participatory governance signal boost Boost Moderate (+5–8 pts)
Jamie Coombes 5 Thin-evidence prototype protection Conditional (floor, not boost) Moderate — sets uncertainty floor at 28 pts when applicable
Jamie Coombes 6 AI ethics rhetoric without mechanism penalty Reduce Weak (−4–7 pts)
Martina Orlea 1 Progressive Values Alignment boost (from title) +2 to +8
Martina Orlea 2 Practitioner-Built Credibility boost (from title) +2 to +6
Martina Orlea 3 Multi-Channel Strategy Support boost (from title) +1 to +5
Martina Orlea 4 Bot/Automation Scepticism Penalty reduce (from title) -3 to -8
Martina Orlea 5 Scalability Evidence Bonus boost (from title) +2 to +6
Martina Orlea 6 Open Source / Accessibility Bonus boost (from title) +1 to +4
Nicholas Botti 1 Boost — Human-in-the-loop governance and judgment preservation boost moderate (+6–10 points)
Nicholas Botti 2 Reduce — Surveillance, opacity, or concentration of power without accountability reduce moderate to strong (−8–15 points)
Nicholas Botti 3 Boost — Explicit complexity acknowledgment and failure mode documentation boost weak to moderate (+3–6 points)
Nicholas Botti 4 Reduce — Naive optimisation without system-level consideration reduce weak to moderate (−4–8 points)
Nicholas Botti 5 Boost — Economic simulation, policymaker advisory tools, or decision-support infrastructure boost moderate (+5–8 points)
Nicholas Botti 6 Conditional — Boosts open-source civic infrastructure; no boost for proprietary tools serving similar purposes conditional (boost if open; no boost if proprietary) weak (+3–5 points) if open
Tuna's Agent 1 Boosts projects with strong data visualisation that reveals hidden patterns boost strong (+10–15 pts)
Tuna's Agent 2 Reduces projects that operate as black boxes — opaque methodology or hidden data reduce strong (-10–15 pts)
Tuna's Agent 3 Boosts projects that address perception gaps between data and public belief boost moderate (+5–10 pts)
Tuna's Agent 4 Reduces projects that merely digitise existing power structures without adding transparency reduce moderate (-5–10 pts)
Tuna's Agent 5 Boosts projects serving populations whose data is underrepresented in global datasets boost moderate (+5–10 pts)
Tuna's Agent 6 Conditional — boosts open-source projects with active community governance; reduces "open-washing" conditional moderate (+5–8 pts boost if genuinely open; -5–8 pts reduce if open-washing)
Tuna's Agent 7 Boosts projects that bridge academic research and public understanding boost weak (+2–5 pts)

Full table — Part C procedural rules (all fellows)

Fellow # Rule Summary
Aadi Kulkarni 1 Abstention threshold A project receives N/A (abstention) only when: (a) the dossier provides insufficient evidence to assess against any of the three HIGH-wei…
Aadi Kulkarni 2 Prototype handling Prototypes are not penalised on the implementation maturity criterion (Criterion 5) IF: the problem they address is clearly within Aadi's…
Aadi Kulkarni 3 Popularity discount Aadi does not treat popularity as a quality signal in itself. His professional formation is in evidence-based policy and data ethics — he…
Aadi Kulkarni 4 Tie-breaking When two projects score equally after all criteria and modifiers: first tie-breaker is accessibility for excluded populations (which proj…
Aadi Kulkarni 5 Uncertainty handling Uncertainty lowers scores only below the underdog protection floor (if active). Above the floor, uncertainty is documented but does not m…
Aadi Kulkarni 6 Novelty vs implementation A compelling theory of change can partially compensate for weak implementation evidence, but only if: (a) the theory is specific and the …
Aadi Kulkarni 7 Movement infrastructure vs direct service Aadi does not systematically prioritise either over the other. His career spans both: Polici was a direct-access tool for individuals; hi…
Aadi Kulkarni 8 Scope of concern Geographic scope does not determine base score. A project addressing local UK housing conditions or a single country's government service…
Alessandro Pedori 1 Abstention Rule Abstain from scoring a project when:
Alessandro Pedori 2 Prototype Ceiling Projects that are prototypes, concepts, or pre-launch (no evidence of real-world use) receive a maximum score of 8/12 on C6 (Implementati…
Alessandro Pedori 3 Underdog Protection Projects with dossier completeness < 0.4 receive a score floor of 25 (out of 100).
Alessandro Pedori 4 Uncertainty Ceiling When the evidence assessment marks a scoring dimension as HIGH uncertainty, the maximum score for criteria in that dimension is capped at…
Asil Sidahmed 1 Abstention threshold A project receives N/A rather than a score when the dossier provides insufficient evidence to evaluate against at least 3 of the 7 criter…
Chris Owen 1 C.1 Abstention threshold A project receives N/A (abstention) only when: (a) dossier_completeness < 0.25 with no usable description, AND (b) the project's websit…
Chris Owen 2 C.2 Dead link cap Projects with dead links (homepage_http_status != 200 or dead_link = true) receive a score cap of 30/100. Exception: if the project has a…
Chris Owen 3 C.3 Prototype handling Early-stage projects are not automatically penalised on C5 (practical deployment) if they serve excluded populations (C1 >= 12) and have …
Chris Owen 4 C.4 Popularity discount Popularity is not a quality signal. When a project scores highly but its dossier richness (high completeness, extensive description) expl…
Chris Owen 5 C.5 Tie-breaking When two projects score equally: (1) first tie-breaker: which project serves a more excluded population (C1 comparison); (2) second tie-b…
Chris Owen 6 C.6 Novelty vs implementation A project with a strong theory of change for an underserved population but no deployment evidence receives a maximum of 65/100. This cap …
Chris Owen 7 C.7 Movement infrastructure vs direct service No systematic preference. Both are scored on their own merits through the criteria. Direct-service education tools score through C1+C2. M…
Chris Owen 8 C.8 Scope of concern Geographic scope does not determine base score. A project serving refugees in one city can score as highly as a global platform. However,…
Fatima Sarah Khalid 1 Abstention threshold Abstain (score N/A) when dossier_completeness < 0.15 AND the project's name, tagline, and scraped_description together provide fewer than…
Fatima Sarah Khalid 2 Prototype handling Prototypes receive protection from Criterion 5 (implementation maturity) penalties when Modifier M6 applies — i.e., when the project is a…
Fatima Sarah Khalid 3 Popularity discount Popularity is not directly discounted from scores, but the popularity_risk field is set to HIGH for any project that: (a) has dossier_c…
Fatima Sarah Khalid 4 Tie-breaking When two projects have equal final scores (within ±0.5 points), apply in order:
Fatima Sarah Khalid 5 Uncertainty handling When evidence is thin but not absent (dossier_completeness 0.15–0.40), uncertainty triggers the uncertainty floor — the project's score…
Fatima Sarah Khalid 6 Novelty vs implementation A compelling theory of change can compensate for weak implementation evidence, but only up to a ceiling. A project with genuinely novel a…
Fatima Sarah Khalid 7 Movement infrastructure vs direct service Movement infrastructure and direct service are scored equally through the criteria — there is no categorical preference. However, movemen…
Fatima Sarah Khalid 8 Scope of concern Geographic scope does not directly affect scoring. A local project solving a real access problem for a specific community scores the same…
Hannah O'Rourke 1 Evaluative Constitution — Part C: Procedural Rules ## Evaluator: Hannah O'Rourke
Hannah O'Rourke 2 Rule: Abstention threshold Dossier completeness below 0.15 and description too vague to score any criterion with low confidence.
Hannah O'Rourke 3 Rule: Prototype handling Evidence of active experimentation (hackathon origin, explicit pilot methodology, documented learning cycle) but not full deployment. Dis…
Hannah O'Rourke 4 Rule: Popularity discount Project is well-known, has extensive documentation, or is likely in model training data.
Hannah O'Rourke 5 Rule: Tie-breaking Two or more projects within 1 point of each other after all criteria and modifiers applied.
Hannah O'Rourke 6 Rule: Uncertainty handling Dossier completeness below 0.35 but above 0.15.
Hannah O'Rourke 7 Rule: Novelty vs implementation Project with strong conceptual framing but no documented users or deployment.
Hannah O'Rourke 8 Rule: Movement infrastructure vs direct service Any project that could be classified as either movement infrastructure or direct service delivery.
Hannah O'Rourke 9 Rule: Scope of concern Any project outside UK/Western Europe.
Huda Abdirahim 1 Abstention threshold A project receives N/A (abstention) only when: (1) the dossier has no usable description of what the project does — not a thin descriptio…
Huda Abdirahim 2 Prototype handling Prototypes and early-stage tools are NOT penalised under Criterion 4 (practical deployment) when: (a) the dossier provides a credible tec…
Jamie Coombes 1 ---
Jamie Coombes 2 Abstention threshold Abstain (score N/A) when dossier_completeness < 0.15 AND the scraped_description is empty or consists only of a project name with no subs…
Jamie Coombes 3 Prototype handling Prototypes receive full scoring on criteria C1 (safety/interpretability), C5 (participatory design), and C6 (systemic risk), but are capp…
Jamie Coombes 4 Popularity discount High dossier completeness (>0.8) combined with name recognition (projects appearing in major civic tech directories, well-known brand nam…
Jamie Coombes 5 Tie-breaking When two projects have identical final scores after criteria + modifiers, break ties in this order:
Jamie Coombes 6 Uncertainty handling When evidence is thin but not absent (dossier_completeness 0.15–0.35), apply the underdog protection floor (see Part D). The project rece…
Jamie Coombes 7 Novelty vs implementation A genuinely novel approach can compensate for weak implementation evidence, but only up to 60% of the total possible score. A project wit…
Jamie Coombes 8 Movement infrastructure vs direct service Movement infrastructure and direct service are scored equally on criteria — neither receives a structural advantage. However, movement in…
Jamie Coombes 9 Scope of concern Geographic scope does not directly affect scoring. A project serving one UK local authority and a project serving 30 countries are assess…
Nicholas Botti 1 ---
Nicholas Botti 2 Abstention threshold A project receives N/A (abstain) rather than a score if: (a) the dossier has no substantive text in any of the primary narrative fields (…
Nicholas Botti 3 Prototype handling Prototypes are NOT protected from implementation-maturity penalties on Criterion 6 (implementation maturity). A well-designed prototype t…
Nicholas Botti 4 Popularity discount Well-documented popularity is NOT treated as a quality signal. A project with a polished website, many media mentions, and extensive doss…
Nicholas Botti 5 Tie-breaking When two projects score identically after all criteria and modifiers, the tie-breaker sequence is:
Nicholas Botti 6 Uncertainty handling When dossier evidence is thin but not absent, uncertainty LOWERS the score on the affected criterion rather than triggering abstention or…
Tuna's Agent 1 Abstention threshold A project receives N/A (abstention) only when: (a) the dossier provides insufficient evidence to assess against either of the two HIGH-we…
Tuna's Agent 2 Prototype handling Prototypes are given fair treatment but not full marks on implementation maturity (Criterion 6). If a prototype addresses evidence legibi…
Tuna's Agent 3 Popularity discount Tuna does not treat popularity as a quality signal. Her professional formation is in data science — she is trained to ask what the evidenc…
Tuna's Agent 4 Tie-breaking When two projects score equally after all criteria and modifiers: first tie-breaker is evidence legibility quality (which project makes i…
Tuna's Agent 5 Uncertainty handling Uncertainty is handled conservatively but without punitive reduction. When evidence is thin but positive in direction — a project appears…
Tuna's Agent 6 Novelty vs implementation A novel approach to evidence communication, data visualisation, or methodological transparency can substantially compensate for limited d…
Tuna's Agent 7 Movement infrastructure vs direct service Tuna does not systematically prefer either. OWID itself is a kind of movement infrastructure — it provides the evidence base that journal…
Tuna's Agent 8 Scope of concern Geographic scope does not determine base score. A project addressing UK parliamentary transparency can score as highly as a global data p…

After fellow PRs change

Re-run the npm script and commit updated all-mirror-rubrics.md, pr-93-body.md, and CSVs.

Introduce aggregate-mirror-v2-criteria.ts to pull Part A/B/C (or single
constitution.md) from each project-mirror-v2/* ref and write committee-aggregation
artifacts: prose review doc, long-format sections CSV, and per-fellow index CSV.

npm run aggregate:mirror-v2-constitutions regenerates outputs after git fetch.

Made-with: Cursor
@sugaroverflow sugaroverflow changed the title Project Mirror v2: aggregate constitutions (MD + CSV) for review Aggregating all the Agent Rubrics for review (Project Mirror v2) Mar 29, 2026
@sugaroverflow
sugaroverflow marked this pull request as draft March 29, 2026 14:32
… for split mirrors

- Add Data tables section: fellow summary + part_a/part_b/part_c/full_constitution tables
- Character counts align with sections CSV; Jump links to full text anchors
- Index CSV: full_constitution_chars only for single_file layout (not duplicate file on split branches)

Made-with: Cursor
Parse criteria from criteria.md, ## Part A in constitution.md, or markdown
criterion tables; support ### Cn., ### 1., plain C1: lines, and | C1 | table rows.

Add all-mirror-criteria-table.csv and Catalogue section in markdown (master +
per-fellow tables). Document in README and PR body.

Made-with: Cursor
… fellow)

Drop mega markdown, char-count tables, SVG, and inlined full constitution text.
Default output is ~300 lines: ## Name + | # | Criterion | Weight | per person.

CSVs unchanged for full text and analysis.

Made-with: Cursor
@sugaroverflow sugaroverflow changed the title Aggregating all the Agent Rubrics for review (Project Mirror v2) 📊 Aggregating all the Agent Rubrics for review (Project Mirror v2) Mar 29, 2026
sugaroverflow and others added 3 commits March 29, 2026 18:40
- Part B: support Modifier N:, M1., M1 —, numbered ###, markdown tables,
  plain M1: lines, plain Direction/Magnitude lines, and title-based inference
- Part C: require delimiter matches; H2 sections with **Rule:**/**Trigger:**;
  fix bold-colon detection for Trigger lines
- Comparison stats: count conditional before boost/reduce
- Refresh all-mirror-rubrics.md and pr-93-body.md

Made-with: Cursor
Frederick O'Brien → Beacon, Martina Orlea → Signal,
Connor Dunlop → Safeguard, Emily Mayhew → Harbour.

Updates all-mirror-constitutions-index.csv, all-mirror-rubrics.md,
all-mirror-criteria-table.csv, all-mirror-constitutions-sections.csv,
and pr-93-body.md. PR links (#72, #80, #81) preserved as history.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant