{ "guide": { "capability_score": { "assessment_categories": [ "architecture building", "field defining contribution", "institution building", "method or framework creation", "knowledge production", "technology/tool creation", "local capability transfer", "public-service impact", "continental/diaspora cooperation", "civilizational alignment with Nsiku, Nzola and Bisalu" ], "click_to_find": [ "outputs", "specialties", "sources still needed", "evidence state", "gaps", "institutional relevance", "possible contribution to African liberation and progress" ], "shows": "Lists such as universities, authors, scientists, builders, journals and knowledge outlets show capability-building potential and verified outputs.", "sort_by": [ "overall score", "country/region", "specialty", "evidence strength", "ATSS/transferability", "sovereign output", "open knowledge", "health/science/technology contribution" ] }, "evidence_states": [ { "meaning": "record exists for visibility or import, but no score should be relied on yet", "state": "not_scored_yet" }, { "meaning": "basic public profile with limited evidence and provisional interpretation", "state": "starter_profile" }, { "meaning": "some sources are attached, but claim-by-claim review may still be incomplete", "state": "source_linked" }, { "meaning": "human review has checked the main claims and evidence sufficiency", "state": "reviewed" }, { "meaning": "public presentation has passed evidence, redaction and review checks", "state": "publication_ready" }, { "meaning": "record exists internally, but public exposure would create risk or legal/source-protection concerns", "state": "sealed" } ], "not_for": [ "It is not a gossip platform, blacklist, entertainment feed or court of final guilt.", "It is not designed to humiliate people, institutions, communities or countries.", "It is not a shield for conduct that endangers Africans, captures institutions or undermines public trust.", "It does not treat popularity, pressure, ideology or diplomatic status as proof." ], "people_first_security": "The platform reads public life from a people-first security perspective: what improves protection, capability, accountability and future freedom, and what creates dependency, exposure, fracture, fear or capture.", "plain_goal": "PASO makes visible what usually remains scattered: capabilities that help African liberation and progress, and risk patterns that can weaken the safety, sovereignty, health, knowledge, dignity or future-shaping power of African peoples.", "response_and_correction": { "automatic_disqualifiers": [ "pressure, threats, intimidation or retaliation", "fraudulent documents or unverifiable claims presented as proof", "attempts to expose witnesses, protected contributors or confidential workflows", "bribery, coercion, legal bullying, smear campaigns or digital harassment", "requests to suppress public-interest evidence without counter-evidence", "attempts to game scores through popularity, volume, bots, coordinated pressure or reputation laundering" ], "estimated_window": "Simple factual corrections can be reviewed in days. Complex dossiers involving legal, source-protection, survivor-protection or geopolitical risk can take several weeks or longer. The public status should show whether review is pending, complete, rejected, or awaiting evidence.", "invitation": "Good-faith entities are welcome to respond, request correction, provide missing evidence or clarify context. Evidence-based correction helps build trust.", "public_process": [ "submit a correction or response with evidence, links, documents, dates and clear claims", "the platform records the request and screens for safety, fraud, abuse and source-protection risk", "reviewers compare the response with existing evidence and update the public record where justified", "the public page may show a correction note, updated score, unresolved dispute note or source-needs update", "the requester is notified when the review status changes, where a safe contact channel exists" ], "transparency_rule": "Bad-faith pressure, fraud or intimidation may itself become a public transparency signal after review and redaction." }, "schema": "paso-score-meaning-guide-v1", "score_bands": [ { "meaning": "very weak verified contribution, or severe unresolved risk where evidence supports caution", "range": "0-20" }, { "meaning": "weak, symbolic, inconsistent, highly dependent or insufficiently evidenced", "range": "21-40" }, { "meaning": "mixed or provisional: useful signs exist, but evidence, outputs, safeguards or review remain incomplete", "range": "41-60" }, { "meaning": "credible contribution or moderate reliability with visible evidence, still requiring periodic review", "range": "61-75" }, { "meaning": "strong verified contribution, high capability value or reliable conduct across several evidence categories", "range": "76-90" }, { "meaning": "exceptional, independently verified, high-impact and resilient contribution across Nsiku, Nzola and Bisalu", "range": "91-100" } ], "threat_score": { "assessment_categories": [ "safety compromised", "security compromised", "health or biosafety compromised", "economic/resource sovereignty compromised", "knowledge/data sovereignty compromised", "constitutional/public accountability compromised", "civilian protection risk", "historical pattern stability", "global conduct consistency", "predictive recurrence risk" ], "helps": [ "citizens stay informed before harm becomes irreversible", "researchers and journalists find source needs and evidence gaps", "institutions see where correction, response or reform is required", "communities distinguish warning signals from confirmed findings" ], "not_a_guilt_finding": "A high threat or capture-risk score is a public-interest warning signal. It is not a final legal conviction, and it should always be read with the evidence state, uncertainty flags and correction pathway.", "shows": "Threat-profile lists show documented or evidence-to-complete risk patterns that may affect sovereignty, public safety, institutional trust, health, education, security, land, resources, media, data or future capability." }, "three_axes": [ { "axis": "Nsiku", "plain": "rule, accountability, limits on power, anti-capture boundaries, consistency between public discourse and action", "question": "Does this actor respect rules, evidence, accountability and African decision-making power?" }, { "axis": "Nzola", "plain": "protection of people, dignity, health, education, social repair and non-fracture", "question": "Does this actor protect people, reduce harm and strengthen social trust?" }, { "axis": "Bisalu", "plain": "tangible outputs: institutions, tools, jobs, infrastructure, laws, publications, companies, skills and local capabilities", "question": "Does this actor produce useful, verifiable results for African capability?" } ], "title": "How to read PASO scores and lists", "visitor_prompts": [ "Start with the dashboard to see the map of capabilities and risks.", "Open a list, sort by score, region, specialty, risk or evidence strength.", "Click a profile to read why the score exists, what evidence supports it, and what sources are still missing.", "Use correction and right-of-response channels to improve records with evidence, not pressure.", "Treat provisional records as research leads, not final findings." ], "zero_trust": { "definition": "Zero trust means that no actor is presumed safe, hostile, competent, honest or useful without evidence. Every record can move up or down as sources, outputs, corrections and reviews improve.", "uses": [ "historical patterns over years, decades or centuries", "recent conduct and contextual opportunism", "global conduct of the actor, not only conduct in one African country", "behavioral patterns, repeated strategy, and incentive alignment", "predictive warning when stable patterns create foreseeable risk" ] } }, "list_explainers": { "actors": { "click_to_find": [ "roles", "outputs", "source anchors", "evidence profile", "Nsiku/Nzola/Bisalu reading", "flags and uncertainties" ], "shows": "This list shows people and organizations whose public work can influence African liberation, protection, science, culture, technology, law, memory, education or capture-risk narratives.", "sort_by": [ "contribution score", "risk score", "category", "country/region", "evidence strength", "specialty" ], "title": "Actors, authors, builders and public personalities", "use": "Use it to see contribution, outputs, alignment, uncertainty and evidence needs across multiple roles. One actor can belong to several categories." }, "knowledge": { "click_to_find": [ "DOI/ISBN/ISSN/ORCID/URL", "summary", "alignment note", "score status", "sources still needed" ], "shows": "This list shows books, journals, archives, outlets, datasets, authors and research networks that can support African/decolonial analysis and public-interest intelligence.", "sort_by": [ "record type", "specialty", "evidence status", "orientation", "source anchor", "review status" ], "title": "Knowledge index and bibliography", "use": "Use it to find sources, build dossiers, identify reliable theoretical or empirical grounding, and separate useful knowledge infrastructure from capture-enabling noise." }, "media": { "click_to_find": [ "ownership/funding notes", "orientation", "source quality", "correction discipline", "bibliography/video/source anchors" ], "shows": "This list shows media outlets, journals, public-education platforms and knowledge channels relevant to how Africa is represented, informed, defended, fragmented or misread.", "sort_by": [ "trust index", "alignment/orientation", "evidence state", "specialty", "region", "public influence" ], "title": "Media, journals, outlets and narrative infrastructure", "use": "Use it to evaluate source usefulness, editorial orientation, African-source density, correction discipline, ownership/funding transparency and narrative-capture risk." }, "states": { "click_to_find": [ "dimension scores", "warning indicators", "capability gaps", "evidence needs" ], "shows": "This list shows African states as public-capability environments: governance, safety, resilience, institutional integrity, health/security capacity and ability to resist capture.", "sort_by": [ "sovereignty score", "country", "risk/capability dimensions" ], "title": "State sovereignty and public-capability index", "use": "Use it to compare where populations have stronger or weaker institutional protection, and where public-interest action should focus." }, "threats": { "click_to_find": [ "key risk reason", "documented patterns", "source anchors", "strategy profile", "uncertainties", "correction pathway" ], "shows": "This list shows risk profiles that may endanger people, institutions, land, health, security, knowledge, resources, narrative sovereignty or future African capability.", "sort_by": [ "risk score", "evidence strength", "actor class", "strategy pattern", "country/region", "right-of-response/correction status" ], "title": "Threat and capture-risk profiles", "use": "Use it to stay informed and protected, distinguish warning signals from confirmed findings, and understand which evidence is still needed." }, "universities": { "click_to_find": [ "outputs", "specialty scores", "strengths", "gaps", "source needs", "ATSS evidence", "right-of-response/correction path where applicable" ], "shows": "This list shows universities, research centers and knowledge institutions that may strengthen African capability, sovereign science, public health, technology, culture, law, education and civilizational continuity.", "sort_by": [ "overall fitness", "country", "specialty", "ATSS impact", "sovereignty score", "evidence strength" ], "title": "Universities and capability infrastructure", "use": "Use it to identify where real African capability is being built, where specialties exist, where gaps remain and which institutions need stronger evidence before ranking." } }, "schema": "paso-public-score-guide-v1" }