A statement qualifies as a trackable promise if it meets all three conditions: it is attributable directly to the official (not a surrogate) in a campaign or inaugural context; it is forward-looking (an expressed intention, not a description of existing policy); and it is verifiable — it has at least one condition that can in principle be confirmed true or false.
Statements of value without action components ("I believe in education") are excluded. Promises contingent on federal action outside the official's jurisdiction are excluded. Where a promise appears at multiple specificity levels, the more specific version is retained.
There is no cap on promise count. All qualifying promises are scored. Capping promise count introduces editorial bias — selecting 6 from 30 means 24 are excluded on undisclosed grounds. Every scorecard displays a mandatory disclosure: N promises tracked · estimated M identified · X excluded for non-verifiability.
PolicyLogic recognizes three promise types, each with its own delivery scoring track. All three feed into the same D0–D4 delivery buckets — the distinction is in how the bucket is determined.
| Type | Definition | How Delivery Is Measured |
|---|---|---|
| Quantitative | Promise includes a numeric target or measurable threshold. | Percentage of stated goal achieved. D4 = 70% or more, D3 = 40% to under 70%, D2 = 10% to under 40%, D1 = under 10% with documented action, D0 = no meaningful action. |
| Qualitative | Promise specifies an action or outcome without a numeric target (pass a bill, make an appointment, launch a program). | Action milestone ladder: D0 = no action · D1 = public commitment only · D2 = formal action initiated (bill introduced, passed committee) · D3 = advanced past the decisive hurdle (passed a full chamber, nominee confirmed, program launched) · D4 = fully delivered. |
| Negative | Promise to prevent, avoid, or not do something ("I will not raise taxes"). | Inverted criteria, scored binary. D4 = condition fully avoided through the term. D0 = condition occurred. Intermediate buckets (D1–D3) do not apply to negative promises — a thing is either avoided or not. The single exception: any mid-term redefinition of the condition triggers an automatic Redefined flag and caps delivery at D2. |
Each promise is scored on three independent axes. The axes combine into a Promise Score. Promise scores are aggregated into an overall grade. Maximum per promise: 25 points.
Delivery measures what the official actually accomplished relative to what was promised. It is the primary axis and carries the most weight in the final grade.
| Code | Label | Description | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|
| D4 | Delivered | 70%+ of quantitative goal achieved, or qualitative promise fully delivered. | 12 |
| D3 | Substantially Delivered | 40% to under 70% achieved, or qualitative promise advanced past the decisive hurdle (D3 on the ladder) with documented evidence. | 9 |
| D2 | Partial | 10% to under 40% achieved, or qualitative promise at formal-action stage (D2 on the ladder). Concrete actions taken without full outcome. | 6 |
| D1 | Minimal | Under 10% of a quantitative goal with documented action, or a qualitative promise at public-commitment-only stage (D1 on the ladder). No enacted policy or measurable outcome yet. | 3 |
| D0 | Not Delivered | No meaningful action taken, promise abandoned, or condition of a negative promise occurred. | 0 |
Their Role modifier (0.0–1.0): The official's direct causal contribution to the outcome is assessed and applied to Delivery points before aggregation.
See the Their Role lookup table below for anchor values by office-action combination.
Difficulty rewards ambition — but only when delivery occurs. Zero delivery earns zero Difficulty points regardless of how ambitious the promise was.
| Code | Label | Description | Max Pts |
|---|---|---|---|
| H3 | Structural | Multi-year initiative requiring coalition-building, constitutional change, or federal coordination. | 5 |
| H2 | Legislative | Requires passage of legislation, significant political capital, or cross-chamber negotiation. | 3 |
| H1 | Executive | Achievable through executive order, budget allocation, appointment, or regulatory change within direct authority. | 1 |
Impact measures what was at stake. It is not modified by delivery — a failed promise on a critical issue still carries high impact stakes. This is intentional: if you promise something that matters and don't deliver, the grade reflects how much it mattered.
| Scale | Description | Pts | Magnitude | Description | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S3 | Systemic / Statewide | 4 | M3 | Transformative | 4 |
| S2 | Regional / Citywide | 2 | M2 | Significant | 2 |
| S1 | Neighborhood / Segment | 1 | M1 | Minor / Symbolic | 1 |
The final grade is calculated from two ratios combined in a fixed 60/40 split. This split is published on every scorecard and does not vary by official, party, or jurisdiction.
| A+ | 90%+ | Exceptional delivery on ambitious, high-impact promises across multiple domains. |
| A | 85–89% | Strong delivery across most domains with documented outcomes. |
| B | 70–84% | Above-average to solid delivery; meaningful gaps remain. |
| C | 50–69% | Mixed to marginal delivery; structural or political barriers evident. |
| D | 30–49% | Poor to very poor delivery; few concrete outcomes. |
| F | Below 30% | No meaningful delivery on tracked promises. |
"I will pass a tenant protection bill in the first session."
The Their Role modifier is the single most judgment-dependent element of the methodology. The following anchor values reduce inconsistency across AI runs and human reviewers.
| Score | Situation | Common Examples |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | Sole or near-sole authority. Official acted unilaterally within clear constitutional or statutory power. | Governor signing an executive order; mayor appointing a department head. |
| 0.8 | Official championed, negotiated, and signed legislation. Legislature was a necessary co-actor but official drove the outcome. | Governor securing and signing a major budget deal; senator authoring and passing a bill with party in majority. |
| 0.6 | Official advocated consistently but was dependent on others who were not fully aligned. | Senator in majority facing moderate opposition within own caucus; governor working with a split legislature. |
| 0.4 | Supporting or facilitative role. Outcome primarily driven by other actors, market forces, or federal policy. | Mayor benefiting from a federal infrastructure grant they applied for but did not design. |
| 0.2 | Minimal causal influence. Outcome largely driven by forces entirely outside the official's sphere. | Economic improvement during a governor's term primarily driven by national trends. |
| 0.0 | No meaningful causal connection. Official's actions were irrelevant to the outcome. | Official claims credit for a federal policy they had no role in; outcome occurred despite official's opposition. |
Clarity measures how specifically a promise was stated at the time it was made. It is assessed as of the original statement — it cannot be improved retroactively by subsequent clarifications.
The scale begins at 2. Pure values statements with no action component ("I believe in stronger communities") carry no verifiable condition and are screened out at qualification under What Counts as a Promise — they never enter the scored set, so there is no Clarity score of 1.
| Score | Label | Definition & Example |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Directional, no specifics | General intent stated, no mechanism, target, or timeframe. Magnitude capped at M1. "We will improve public safety." |
| 3 | Specific policy named | A named policy, program, or bill is referenced. "I will pass a tenant protection bill." |
| 4 | Specific + conditions | Named policy plus timeframe, jurisdiction, or population. "I will pass a tenant protection bill in the first year." |
| 5 | Specific + measurable target | Named policy with a quantified, verifiable outcome. "I will reduce violent crime 20% by 2026." |
Every promise is assigned a timeline bucket based on the official's stated or implied delivery window. Delivery scores are adjusted for whether a promise is early, on-track, or overdue.
| Condition | Status | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Time Pressure < 0.5 | Early | Delivery weight = Time Pressure × 2. Grade is provisional. Displayed with clock indicator. |
| Time Pressure 0.5–1.0 | On Track | Full delivery weight applied. No adjustment. |
| Time Pressure 1.0–1.25 | Overdue (mild) | 10% delivery score reduction. |
| Time Pressure 1.25–1.5 | Overdue (moderate) | 20% delivery score reduction. |
| Time Pressure > 1.5 | Overdue (significant) | Reduction continues at 10% per 0.25 over 1.0, capped at 40%. |
Behavioral flags override or cap standard scoring when the official actively distorted the promise. Each flag requires a written rationale in the scorecard JSON.
When more than one flag applies to the same promise, a cap (maximum) always takes precedence over a floor (minimum), and the lowest applicable cap controls. Example: if Externally Blocked sets a D2 floor and Scope Reduced caps Magnitude while Redefined caps delivery at D2, the delivery score resolves to D2 — the cap binds. A flag that sets the score to a fixed value (Reversed = D0) overrides both caps and floors.
Transparency flags are applied at the scorecard level and communicate limitations to readers without modifying the grade. They appear as labeled badges on the scorecard.