Methodology of the Polimetron Index

Construct. Personal integrity hinges on timely/complete asset declarations, conflict-of-interest (COI) transparency, and absence of formal ethics sanctions. Where statutory systems are partially implemented, we benchmark to what a diligent official could make public and to third-party oversight traces.

Operationalization. Indicators include asset declaration timeliness/completeness, COI disclosure quality, and recorded ethics sanctions. Non-observable sub-measures are coded missing-by-design with confidence penalties; observable events (sanctions) are binary or timed decay if expunged.

Interpretation. High scores denote proactive integrity practices beyond the legal minimum, not merely the absence of convictions.

Construct. Commitment to institutional constraints is reflected in support for independent oversight bodies, compliance with court orders, and adherence to parliamentary procedure.

Operationalization. Voting records on judicial independence may be unavailable; we rely on documented actions supporting bodies (e.g., ADAE, Supreme Audit, EPPO/PEGA), court-order compliance where case-law exists, and Speaker-recorded procedural rulings.

Interpretation. The pillar rewards demonstrable support for checks-and-balances rather than partisan expedience.

Construct. Openness is captured via proactive disclosure beyond statutory minima, FOI compliance, parliamentary question responsiveness, and meeting/lobby transparency.

Operationalization. Where no formal lobby register exists, we score voluntary meeting disclosures and publication habits; FOI metrics are constrained by the legal regime and statistics availability.

Interpretation. High scores reflect systematic publication beyond compliance, offering reproducible public audit trails.

Construct. Responsiveness captures diligence toward parliamentary committees, quality/timeliness of answers, issuance of corrections, and constituency case handling.

Operationalization. Attendance is often unpublished; we complement with answer timeliness proxies, formal errata, and ombudsman-style case handling where available.

Interpretation. The measure distinguishes performative engagement from verifiable, timely, and corrective interactions.

Construct. Ethical conformance includes code-of-conduct violations, gift register completeness, documented recusals on COI, and revolving-door controls.

Operationalization. We code violations and sanctions; gifts are assessed for coverage and granularity; recusal behavior is often untracked; revolving-door is reconstructed from career timelines and cooling-off regimes.

Interpretation. Scores emphasize verifiable, prospective risk controls rather than post-hoc justifications.

Construct. Enforcement measures whether rules “bite”: sanctions imposed, corrective actions taken, repeat-offender patterns, and behavior in landmark integrity cases.

Operationalization. We record actual sanctions, remedial steps, recurrence patterns, and conduct in major events (e.g., handling of surveillance scandals) as binary/ordinal indicators with documented sources.

Interpretation. High scores indicate effective, credible accountability — not merely the existence of rules on paper.

Measures on-time filing relative to statutory deadlines and historical patterns; late filings decay score by severity and frequency. Missing official publication is treated as non-observable with confidence penalties, not as zero.

Assesses declared scope (assets, liabilities, beneficial interests) and attachment sufficiency. In absence of public attachments, triangulation with credible third-party reports is documented.

Evaluates the presence, specificity, and update cadence of COI statements; explicit recusals improve this score when verifiable.

Binary/ordinal scoring of formal findings and sanctions, with time decay for older events post-rehabilitation windows.

Where roll-calls are absent, this is missing-by-design; proxy narratives are documented separately (non-scoring).

Actions that resource, defend, or strengthen ADAE/EPPO/PEGA, audit institutions, and Ombudsman; negative actions reduce score.

Tracks compliance with final court decisions; verified non-compliance yields sharp penalties; compliance strengthens Rule-of-Law signal.

Uses Speaker/committee records for breaches vs. clean conduct; chronic breaches trend score down.

Rates response rates/latency where tracked; where not tracked, coded missing with documentation.

Assesses FOI responsiveness where a legal/statistical basis exists; otherwise documented as a systemic gap (non-scoring).

Scores voluntary publication of meetings/contacts; absence of a formal register does not preclude high voluntary transparency.

Rewards systematic, structured publication of datasets, calendars, and decisions beyond statutory minima, enabling reproducible audits.

Where attendance is not published it is missing-by-design; when available, we normalize by expected load and tenure length.

Combines latency windows and content adequacy rubrics; repeated non-answers depress scores more than isolated delays.

Formal corrections demonstrate accountability; timely, self-initiated errata score highest, adversarially compelled ones moderately.

Where casework stats exist, we compute closure rates adjusted for complexity; otherwise flagged as non-observable with narrative note.

Indexed severity/frequency over time, with rehabilitation windows; zero indicates clean record within observation window.

Coverage, thresholding, and granularity (donor, value, date); partial systems are scored on best-effort publication fidelity.

Verifiable recusals on COI earn credit; absence of tracking is documented without punitive assumptions.

Applies to cooling-off compliance and ex-ante reviews; career timelines are reconstructed from career transitions.

Binary/ordinal based on official sanctioning decisions; independent body sanctions carry higher weight than internal admonitions.

Records remedial actions proportional to breach; timeliness and completeness matter for scoring uplift.

Recurrence within a rolling window compounds penalties; clean periods attenuate past penalties per defined decay.

Conduct in major integrity events (e.g., high-salience surveillance cases) is coded from verifiable records; neutrality, cooperation, and corrective stance drive scores.