Source Transparency Design
A short design note on tying reviewed country scores back to source status, confidence, known gaps, and canonical records.
This note explains a small transparency pattern in the Reality-Contact Resilience Explorer. It is about source contact and uncertainty, not empirical validation.
Purpose
The Explorer's country presets are heuristic reviewed records, not empirical rankings. The Why these scores? panel is meant to keep the numbers tethered to sources, uncertainty, and review status.
The goal is modest: when a reviewed country is selected, readers should be able to see what kind of evidence supports the score, where confidence is lower, and where the underlying canonical record lives.
What the panel shows
- review status;
- confidence profile;
- known evidence gaps;
- source basis;
- canonical source record path.
Why this matters
A score can look more certain than it is. The panel is intended to make mediation visible: what evidence supports the score, what remains incomplete, and where interpretive judgment enters.
This follows the accountable mediation principle behind the project. A public claim does not need perfect contact with every source, but it should preserve a usable path back to its evidence, caveats, and review status.
What this does not claim
- It is not a validated index.
- It is not a prediction engine.
- It is not a moral ranking of countries.
- Low scores are not judgments of people or cultures.
- High scores are not claims of moral superiority.
Future possibilities
Later versions could add readable static country source pages, source-contact categories, or clearer known-gap summaries. Those additions should stay lightweight unless the project has a clear reason to do more.
This note does not commit the Explorer to a citation database, source weighting engine, backend, or automated scoring system.