Climate DRIVE Methodology

Climate DRIVE Methodology

Delivery Evidence Index DEI-1.0: Measure the strength, completeness, and maturity of evidence supporting an assessable delivery claim. It is an evidence-maturity measure; general project quality and performance outcome do not independently add points.

Authoritative methodology: DEI-1.0 · Definition fingerprint b6ec43392a678ba5… · Effective August 8, 2026

1. Assessability

A claim is first classified as Assessable, Assessable With Qualifications, Not Yet Assessable. A Not Yet Assessable claim receives no numerical DEI. Qualified and not-yet-assessable determinations require a reason.

2. Five weighted evidence dimensions

DimensionWeightWhat the 0–4 judgment means
Evidence coverage & completeness25%
  1. 0: No usable evidence
  2. 1: Small part of claim covered
  3. 2: Important parts covered, major gaps remain
  4. 3: Most material parts covered
  5. 4: All material parts adequately covered
Authenticity & provenance20%
  1. 0: Source cannot be established
  2. 1: Serious provenance concerns
  3. 2: Source partly established
  4. 3: Source and origin well established
  5. 4: Strongly authenticated with clear provenance
Attribution & temporal relevance20%
  1. 0: Not linked to claim/project or wrong period
  2. 1: Weak link
  3. 2: Reasonable but qualified link
  4. 3: Clearly attributable and timely
  5. 4: Directly attributable and precisely relevant to period claimed
Strength & corroboration20%
  1. 0: Assertion only
  2. 1: Weak/self-report evidence
  3. 2: Some substantive evidence but limited corroboration
  4. 3: Strong evidence with meaningful corroboration
  5. 4: Multiple strong, materially independent sources support the claim
Consistency & sufficiency15%
  1. 0: Evidence cannot support assessment
  2. 1: Major contradictions/gaps
  3. 2: Partially sufficient with material uncertainty
  4. 3: Broadly consistent and sufficient
  5. 4: Internally consistent and sufficient to strongly support the claim

3. Calculation and missing/N/A treatment

Each applicable dimension uses the authoritative 0-4 integer scale with a written rationale. The DEI is calculated as 100 × Σ((dimension score ÷ 4) × dimension weight) ÷ Σ(applicable dimension weights).

Not Applicable: Exclude N/A dimension weight from the denominator and normalize across applicable weights; rationale required. At least one dimension must remain applicable. A missing required dimension or missing rationale blocks calculation rather than being treated as zero.

Document count, public accessibility of evidence, general project quality, performance outcome do not independently add points to DEI v1.0.

4. Evidence-maturity bands

DEIMaturity label
85–100Established
70–84.99Substantial
50–69.99Developing
25–49.99Early-stage
0–24.99Initial

5. Dual blind review and disagreement resolution

Reviewer A and Reviewer B independently apply the same DEI v1.0 rubric. When their judgments are within the material-disagreement rule, the reviewer result is resolved by AB_MEAN — mean-by-dimension aggregation and then the same weighted DEI formula is applied.

A disagreement is material when the overall DEI gap is at least 10 points, when reviewers disagree on whether a dimension is applicable, or when an applicable dimension differs by at least 2 rubric levels. Material disagreement triggers separate blind clarification. Reviewer identities, peer scores, rationales and conclusions remain hidden from each other.

For aggregation, dimension applicability follows the reviewer majority; an equal split is treated as applicable, and only applicable reviewer scores enter that dimension aggregation.

If the material disagreement remains after blind clarification, a fresh Reviewer C is mandatory. The final reviewer result then uses ABC_MEDIAN — median-by-dimension aggregation across A/B/C. Staff cannot select a preferred reviewer as the winner.

6. Verification and publication boundary

Verification evaluates the evidence basis and may require a fresh blind reassessment when evidence treatment changes materially; it does not rewrite submitted reviewer scores. Approval is a governance gate, not a scoring stage. Published records use the stored authoritative DEI result and its methodology version rather than recalculating a score from the public snapshot.

Historical results produced under LEGACY-5.0.3 remain historical; they are not retrospectively converted into DEI v1.0.

Call Us!