Federal agencies generate substantial volumes of formal communication. Not all of it constitutes a trackable commitment. A statement enters the database only if it meets all four criteria.
The commitment must appear in an eligible primary source. Eligible sources include: GPRAMA strategic plans, annual performance plans and reports, the Unified Regulatory Agenda (reginfo.gov), Federal Register publications, congressional testimony by agency heads, executive order and OMB memorandum responses, Inspector General audit responses, GAO report responses, and interagency agreements or memoranda of understanding.
The commitment must contain at least three of the following four elements: an identifiable deliverable, a measurable target, a defined timeframe, and a responsible owner (a specific agency or named office). Commitments meeting all four are tracked at full specificity. Commitments meeting exactly three carry a Missing-Element Flag. Commitments meeting two or fewer are excluded.
The commitment must have a timeframe against which delivery can be assessed — explicit deadline, plan period, regulatory action timeline, or inferable timeframe from document type. Open-ended commitments are excluded because delivery cannot be evaluated.
The commitment must be attributable to a specific agency or named office. Diffuse attributions ("the administration," "federal stakeholders") do not satisfy this criterion on their own. Multi-agency commitments are tracked under the lead agency with cross-reference flags.
The four-axis scoring framework is identical to the Elected Officials methodology — Delivery (max 12), Difficulty (max 5), Impact (max 8), Their Role (0.0–1.0) — with bucket definitions adapted to agency commitment types.
| Code | Label | Agency-Specific Description | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|
| D4 | Delivered | Commitment fully executed: rule finalized, system operational, program implemented, capability deployed, or stated outcome achieved. | 12 |
| D3 | Substantially Delivered | Rule proposed and on track for finalization, system in pilot, program partially operational, or substantial progress toward stated outcome. | 9 |
| D2 | Partial | Rule in early drafting, system in design phase, program planned but not implemented, or partial outcome achieved. | 6 |
| D1 | Minimal | Commitment included in plan or agenda but no observable action toward execution. | 3 |
| D0 | Not Delivered | No meaningful action, commitment abandoned, or formally revoked. | 0 |
| Code | Label | Agency-Specific Description | Max Pts |
|---|---|---|---|
| H3 | Structural | Cross-agency coordination required, congressional engagement, court navigation, multi-administration timeline, or significant institutional restructuring. | 5 |
| H2 | Programmatic | Deploy a new system, restructure operations, implement a new program, complete a major capability build, or coordinate with external partners. | 3 |
| H1 | Operational | Publish guidance, issue a technical document, propose a rule under existing authority, complete an internal assessment, or take regulatory action within established frameworks. | 1 |
| Score | Situation | Agency Examples |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | Agency has independent legal authority to deliver without coordination with other actors. | NIST publication decisions; FDA approval decisions within existing pathways; agency internal operational changes. |
| 0.8 | Agency holds primary authority but coordinates with supporting actors who are involved but not directing. | Lead-agency multi-stakeholder rulemakings; agency-led interagency working groups. |
| 0.6 | Agency holds significant but not primary authority. Delivery depends on substantial coordination with equal or senior actors. | Dual-agency rulemakings; agency contributions to White House initiatives. |
| 0.4 | Agency has a defined role but cannot deliver independently. Other actors hold primary or veto authority. | Agency implementations of congressional appropriations; agency execution of executive orders where White House controls scope. |
| 0.2 | Agency contributes but has minimal independent authority. | Agency technical support to other agencies' lead efforts; advisory roles in multi-actor processes. |
| 0.0 | No meaningful causal connection. The agency's actions were irrelevant to the outcome. | Agency claims credit for an outcome driven by another agency, a court ruling, or congressional action it had no role in; outcome occurred despite the agency's inaction. |
The standard behavioral flags (Reversed, Redefined, Externally Blocked, Credit Overclaimed, Deadline Shifted, Scope Reduced) apply with agency-appropriate definitions. Two additional flags are specific to agency commitments. The same precedence rule applies as in the Elected Officials methodology: when multiple flags apply, a cap takes precedence over a floor, the lowest cap controls, and a fixed-value flag (Reversed = D0) overrides both.
The Federal Agencies methodology adds a capability layer not present in the Elected Officials methodology. Five capability factors are scored independently and published alongside the Promise Score. They do not adjust the score — they provide context for interpreting it, enabling a distinction between structural failure (the agency lacked the conditions to deliver) and performance failure (the conditions were there but the agency didn't deliver).
| Factor | Question It Answers | Scored 1–5 |
|---|---|---|
| Resource Adequacy | Did the agency have the budget and staffing to deliver? | 5 = fully resourced · 1 = resources entirely absent |
| Authority Alignment | Did the agency have the legal authority to deliver independently? | 5 = sole authority · 1 = authority insufficient |
| Political Support | Did executive and congressional leadership actively support delivery? | 5 = consistent support · 1 = active opposition |
| Timeline Realism | Was the original deadline achievable given required actions? | 5 = generous timeline · 1 = unachievable |
| External Dependencies | Did delivery depend on contractor performance, court rulings, or other factors outside agency control? | 5 = minimal dependencies · 1 = delivery largely outside agency control |
Federal agencies do not receive a single letter grade. Agency missions are too varied and their commitment portfolios too complex for a single grade to carry meaning. Instead, each agency receives a structured profile showing delivery patterns by commitment type, by difficulty level, and by capability-adjusted analysis. The profile surfaces whether the agency's performance is structurally driven or performance-driven — a distinction that a single letter grade would erase.
Agency commitments may be flagged based on events after they enter the database. These flags appear on the commitment record and do not modify the delivery score.
| Flag | Applied When |
|---|---|
| Revoked | Commitment explicitly rescinded by the agency or a superseding authority. |
| Superseded | Commitment replaced by a later commitment that materially alters the deliverable, target, timeframe, or scope. |
| Contingent | Commitment execution depends on action not yet taken (most commonly: congressional appropriation). |
| Lapsed | Cross-administration commitment that dropped without explicit revocation. Applied if a new administration does not formally restate a prior commitment within 12 months of transition. |
| Awaiting Translation | Executive order or OMB memorandum directed at an agency that the agency has not yet translated into a formal implementation commitment. |