CEIAI Governance Database
Methodology

How we decide which sources to include

Every document in the database goes through the same published process before it appears on the site. This page explains that process step by step, and what the labels you see on each source mean.

5

Eligibility checks

A source must pass all five to be considered.

3

Scores, 0–2 each

Added up to a total out of 6.

1

Outcome label

Core, Supporting or Context only.

Overview

The process at a glance

Five steps take a document from a link to a published, labelled source.

  1. Step 1

    Intake

    Candidate sources are gathered region by region, each with the primary URL of the document itself and the topic it was found under.

  2. Step 2

    Retrieve

    The document text is retrieved from its source, with its dates and metadata, and kept as the exact evidence the assessment is based on.

  3. Step 3

    Check

    Five eligibility checks decide whether the source belongs in the database at all. Failing any one of them stops it here.

  4. Step 4

    Score

    Sources that pass every check are scored 0–2 on actionability, authority and currency, for a total out of 6.

  5. Step 5

    Classify

    Descriptive labels (perspective, topic, lifecycle stage, layer, granularity) are attached, then a fixed rule turns the score into an outcome.

Eligibility

Five checks every source must pass

These decide whether a document belongs in the database at all. A source that fails any one of them is rejected and never scored.

The first check is measured directly from what was retrieved. The other four are judgments made on the document’s own text, each backed by a quote from it. If a supporting quote is missing or invalid, the source is marked unresolved for review instead of being rejected automatically.

  1. 1
    Retrievable

    Does the URL resolve to enough full text to assess?

  2. 2
    About AI

    Is AI or an algorithmic system the source’s primary subject?

  3. 3
    About governance

    Does it address rules, oversight, rights, risk, safety, ethics with consequences, or policy?

  4. 4
    Attributable

    Is a named author or issuing body responsible for the source?

  5. 5
    In force

    Is this the current version, with no positive evidence of repeal, withdrawal, or replacement?

Scoring

Three scores, each from 0 to 2

Only sources that pass all five checks are scored. The three scores add up to a total out of 6.

Actionability

Judged

Does it tell anyone what to do?

Distinguishes description or analysis from general direction and from a specific obligation, control, or duty.

Authority

Judged

How much weight does it carry?

Rates the status of this document and its issuer, not the authority of sources it merely cites.

Currency

Computed

How up to date is it?

Uses the newest observed publication or modification date against a freshness window suited to the kind of source. Missing dates remain unknown, never guessed.

If one score can’t be determined, the others may be pro-rated, but at least two of the three must be scored before an outcome is given. Unknown evidence is never silently treated as zero.

Outcomes

What the results mean

Every source ends with one of five outcomes. Three of them, set by the total score out of 6, are shown on the site.

Core

Score 5–6

The key documents: high on actionability, authority and currency.

Supporting

Score 3–4

Useful sources that score well, but not at the top on every measure.

Context only

Score 0–2

Background reading: relevant, but lower on the three scores.

Rejected

Failed a check

Fails at least one of the five eligibility checks, so it is never scored.

Unresolved

Not enough evidence

The evidence isn’t clear enough for a final outcome yet, so it waits for review.

Trust

Review and limits

Reproducible and reviewed

Each screening run is kept as an unchangeable, versioned record: the evidence retrieved, the check results, the scores and the outcomes, tied to the exact rubric version that produced them. Every source has a revisit date, and editorial review can confirm or correct any judgment.

How to read these results

Screening helps sort and prioritise sources; it does not replace subject-matter, legal or editorial review. Where the evidence was insufficient, the site says so rather than hiding it.

Ready to explore?

Every source shows its checks, scores and the quotes behind them.

Browse sources