Methodology

Every domain in this project gets analyzed through the same framework. The framework matters because consistency is what lets a reader compare across domains, and because the act of forcing every domain through the same questions reveals which domains the framework strains against — those strains are themselves findings.

The five lenses

Each domain is examined through five lenses. They aren't sequential; they interact.

1. Track 1 — what the law says

The formal statutory and regulatory architecture. What rules exist on paper. Federal, state (Pennsylvania), local (Philadelphia and the relevant municipalities within PA-3) as applicable. Sourced to specific statutes and regulations, not to summaries.

2. Track 2 — how it actually operates

The administrative and practical reality. How the law gets implemented, who implements it, what discretion exists, what resources are actually available, what the experience is on the receiving end. Often diverges from Track 1 in significant ways.

3. Constituent — who lives inside this domain

PA-3 residents whose lived experience illustrates the structural findings. Profiles are anonymized or attributed at the resident's discretion (see Privacy options). The constituent lens is what keeps the analysis from becoming abstract.

4. Gap analysis — where Track 1 and Track 2 diverge

The core analytical move. Where the formal architecture and the operational reality fail to match, what's the shape of the failure? Is it under-resourcing? Discretionary implementation? Statutory ambiguity exploited in particular directions? Capture by particular interests? The taxonomy of gaps is itself part of the project's contribution.

5. Statutory stability vs administrative vulnerability

A reformer's question: which parts of the formal architecture are durable (constitutional, statutory, well-defended) and which parts are vulnerable to administrative reinterpretation, defunding, or capture? Reform efforts that target the wrong layer waste energy. This lens helps identify where pressure does the most.

Sources

Every empirical claim in this project is sourced. The standard is traceable to its authoritative origin, not just to a secondary source that summarizes it. If a claim about wealth concentration appears, it traces to the underlying Federal Reserve series or the original Zucman-Saez paper, not to the news article that quoted them. Where authoritative sources disagree, the disagreement is shown.

For external links, citations follow APA-style for academic sources and a flexible-but-auditable format for legislative and regulatory citations (statute number, section, jurisdiction, date of access).

Versioning

Every page is versioned from day one — each edit creates a new commit, attributed to the contributor at their chosen privacy level. The Timeline page shows changes across the whole project. Per-page history is reachable from the "View history on GitHub" link at the bottom of every page.

This means the methodology itself is versionable. If a contributor proposes a sixth lens, or argues that one of the existing five is doing more harm than good, that's a methodology-level pull request — and the historical version is preserved in the commit log.

Boundary conditions

A few things this methodology deliberately doesn't try to do.

It doesn't predict. The gap analysis is descriptive of present conditions, not a forecast of how the gap will change.

It doesn't recommend. Recommendations are policy work, which lives at the Propose tier of contribution. The analytical project surfaces the gap; the proposal project decides what to do about it. Keeping these separate keeps the analysis honest.

It doesn't compare to other districts. PA-3 is the case. The framework is portable to other districts, but doing the comparative work is a separate project.