Read the rubrics
Where they are
In the public data repository, one file per area, alongside a roll-call file that lists every area and carries the weight vector saying how much each contributes.
git clone https://github.com/ACT3ai/data_we_citizens.git
Then read qualifications/. No tooling required.
How to read one
Start at the leaves, not the summary. The area name tells you the topic; the leaves tell you what is actually being measured, and that is where a rubric is either honest or not.
Read level 5 and level 9 of a leaf together. The gap between them is the rubric's real content — what it thinks improvement consists of.
Look for the mechanism. A good leaf's high levels describe how somebody reasons. A bad leaf's high levels describe what somebody concludes. If you can tell which party wrote it, it is broken.
How to argue with it
The rubrics are files in a public repository, so disagreement is concrete rather than rhetorical.
The strongest objection is to name a leaf and show a political position that cannot reach a 9 on it without abandoning itself. That is the failure mode the movement most wants reported, and it is the test the rubrics are supposed to survive.
The second strongest is to show a leaf where a high level does not actually indicate competence — where somebody could score well by being fluent rather than right.
File it through the app, or as a pull request against the file.
The defamation posture
Rubrics describe competence in an area, assessed from what somebody said and did, with the material cited. They do not characterise people. An assessment is a reading of stated positions against a published standard — and a low result is a statement about the material we have, which is why the percent-known figure always travels with it.
The state of them
Sixteen areas are authored, with 781 leaves. Economics was developed first as the worked example, and the mechanism discipline was applied outward from it.
They are a first pass by construction — written to be argued with, and improved by people who know an area better than the person who drafted it.