What feeds it

The inputs

• Transcripts of their own words — long-form interviews and appearances, at length.
• Public writing — books, articles, published positions.
• Public commitments — what they have said they would do, specific enough to check later.
• Background — work, service, things actually built or run.
• Qualification assessments — those transcripts read against the movement's published rubrics.

Assessed per area, not as one lump

A Flamingo is not a single opinion. It is assembled from the qualification areas — economics, anti-corruption, constitutional competence, foreign policy, citizens' rights, intellectual rigor, loyalty, life experience and the rest — each assessed separately against a rubric that was published before anybody was assessed against it.

That structure is what makes the award arguable. "This person is unimpressive" is not a claim anybody can engage with. "This person scores low on mechanism in economics and high on constitutional competence" is.

The drill-in

Every rendered Flamingo is the top of a path that goes all the way down:

the award  ->  per-area results  ->  the criteria in that area
           ->  the material each conclusion rests on
           ->  a single video, and a single transcription of it

You can start at a number on a card and end at the sentence somebody actually said. That is the whole design: no layer of the assessment is allowed to be a thing you have to take on faith.

What never feeds it

The in-office voting record. Votes, authorships and blocks go to the Monkey and the Llama, and the wall between the two sides runs in both directions.