Mandate before alignment
Describe what an institution is authorized and incentivized to do before assigning narrative meaning.
Global editorial doctrine
One standard of evidence.
Many legitimate viewpoints.
The governing methodology for international coverage: equal evidentiary thresholds, local and multilingual sources, rights-aware institutional analysis, explicit uncertainty, correction pathways, and non-stereotyped character identity.
Direct answer
What is the IARPG international fairness method?
Every jurisdiction is researched through the same analytical questions and evidence thresholds, but not forced into the same political or cultural template. The method requires formal/practical authority separation, source diversity, rights and oversight analysis, affected-community context, uncertainty labels, endonym and translation review, correction history, and equal scrutiny of favorable and unfavorable claims.
- Evidence
- Claims, sources, confidence, contradictions, and cutoff dates
- Rights
- Oversight, due process, privacy, labor, minority, disability, diaspora, and civilian effects
- Language
- Local authorship, local-language evidence, endonyms, and translation limits
Comparative lens
Compare institutions,
not civilizations.
Every profile uses the same dimensions and records where public evidence is incomplete, contested, dated, or inaccessible. Formal law and practical authority are kept separate.
Formal and practical power
Show constitutional or statutory chains separately from credibly assessed real influence.
Equal evidence burden
Apply the same sourcing, confidence, contradiction, and correction rules to every jurisdiction.
Rights and affected people
Include oversight, due process, privacy, labor, minority, diaspora, disability, and civilian impacts.
Time-stamped uncertainty
Date current-status claims and mark unknown, disputed, inaccessible, or rapidly changing information.
No national moral typecasting
States, institutions, officials, communities, and individual characters are not interchangeable.
Country coverage
Every country belongs in the roadmap.
Listing a country is a commitment to fair future coverage, not a claim that a dedicated profile is complete. Regional baselines guide the next research cycle.
7 coverage commitments
official law and public records · independent scholarship · local journalism · regional organizations · civil-society and rights reporting · affected communities · diaspora and minority voices
6 coverage commitments
state versus population · institution versus individual · formal versus practical authority · historical versus current status · claim versus assessment · capability versus intent
6 coverage commitments
endonym and naming review · translation review · loaded-language audit · missing-country audit · correction and retraction path · gameplay abstraction safety
Evidence and attribution discipline
Equal burdens apply
to every attribution claim.
Do not infer coordination, identity, sponsorship, intent, reach, effect, alignment, or danger from geography, language, symbols, one public statement, one shared adversary, or repeated reporting. Apply the same attribution ladder, source-chain test, and correction burden to every jurisdiction and actor.
One proposition per rung
Observed content, falsity, coordination, actor identity, sponsorship, intent, reach, and effect require separate support.
Independent origins only
Ten derivatives of one actor-controlled statement are one evidentiary origin, not ten confirmations.
Compare capabilities
Authorization, access, inspection, complaint, adjudication, binding remedy, publication, and appeal are distinct powers.
Inference is not identity
Observed data, derived attributes, identity hypotheses, and consequential decisions remain separate and challengeable.
Deep research links
Source reports for this international lens.
These full reports remain individually downloadable with hashes, source lineage, stable headings, limitations, and current-status notes.
FULL REPORT
GLOBAL METHODOLOGY FOR COMPARATIVE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY INSTITUTIONS
The baseline international research and confidence framework.
→
FULL REPORT
Equal Standards Across Unequal Records: International Institutional Fairness, Rights, and Evidence Audit
A repeatable audit for rights, institutional fairness, and affected communities.
→
FULL REPORT
Current-Country Evidence Audit: Cross-Batch Disagreement, Asymmetry, and Unresolved Review
The first equal-burden claim audit across the five draft country proposals, with explicit separation between source verification and missing human or locally informed review.
→
FULL REPORT
Independent Release Audit: International Fairness, Evidence Integrity, Character Realism, Safety, and Global Usability
An independent quality check for asymmetry, omissions, loaded framing, and unsupported certainty.
→
FULL REPORT
Worldwide Identity Without Default Assumptions: Names, Languages, Citizenship, Territory, and Migration
A global identity and character framework designed to prevent reductive national or cultural typing.
→
FULL REPORT
Twelve Standalone Prompts for Independent International Research Agents
Independent international research prompts that broaden country and regional inquiry.
→
FULL REPORT
Ordinary Lives in a Worldwide MMO: Regional Cast, Relationship, Routine, and Off-Screen-Life Research
Ordinary-life, relationship, language, class, disability, mobility, and off-screen-life research for a worldwide cast.
→
Editorial commitment
Fairness is a process,
not a slogan.
International fairness requires ongoing review. The site must publish what is known, what is assessed, what is disputed, what could not be verified, which perspectives are missing, and how a correction can supersede an earlier claim.
Read the international methodology
