How do we recognize democratic erosion while lawful remedies still exist, and how do we explain it clearly enough that ordinary people, journalists, researchers, and public servants can act on reality instead of noise?
Democratic systems usually do not collapse in one dramatic moment. They weaken through normalization, delay, institutional intimidation, selective enforcement, and the quiet erosion of standards that used to hold power in check. By the time the danger feels obvious to everyone, the tools to correct it are often weaker than they look.
This project exists to make those patterns visible earlier. It is an independent effort to track democratic risk with a structured scoring framework, transparent methodology, and a bias toward primary evidence wherever possible.
The only way a project like this earns trust is through discipline. That means using evidence hierarchies, showing score changes clearly, resisting the temptation to inflate claims, and staying willing to correct mistakes in public. Strong conclusions require strong sourcing. Disagreement should improve the work, not weaken it.
The mission is not to create another outrage engine. The mission is to build a civic instrument that is rigorous enough to be useful and transparent enough to be challenged.