Event severity rubric

Each event receives a severity 1–5 and a direction -1 / 0 / +1. The point impact on the pillar subscore is a deterministic function of severity × direction:

Severity	Subscore impact magnitude
1	±0.2
2	±0.5
3	±1.5
4	±3.0
5	±6.0

These values are fixed. Changes are only allowed via a Git commit to this file with reasoning recorded in CHANGELOG.md. The score_impact of every JSON event must correspond (severity × direction × this table); validate.ts enforces it.

Status: v0.1 draft (2026-04-28). Examples are illustrative and require calibration against real Czech cases.

Level 1 — Negligible incident (±0.2)

Statements without institutional impact, minor procedural lapses with no precedent value, one-off verbal attacks with no follow-on.

Examples:

A politician calls a journalist an "activist" on social media without further escalation.
Routine multi-day delay in publishing a vote in the Chamber of Deputies.
A small mistake in an asset declaration without any sign of intent (corrected within 30 days).
Brief technical issues with the Central Electoral Commission website before an election, quickly resolved.
A public broadcaster briefly fails to air an interview with an opposition politician for a neutral reason (technical failure).

When NOT: repeated statements by the same person within a short period → escalates to 2+. Attacks accompanied by threats → higher.

Level 2 — Minor one-off incident with local impact (±0.5)

A specific breach of a norm or process with limited impact; a controversial decision that doesn’t threaten the institution on its own but deserves to be recorded.

Examples:

A short expedited reading (one of three mandatory periods cut) on a non-controversial bill, with no precedent value.
Single ejection of a journalist from a specific outlet from a press conference, with subsequent apology.
Politically motivated personnel intervention at the mid-level civil service (e.g. removing a department head) without a cascade effect.
Sustained criticism of a specific judge by a politician (≥ 3 statements in a week) without calls for removal.
A fine for inaccurate party accounting on the order of tens of thousands of crowns.

When NOT: repeated cuts of the reading periods → escalation. Ejection with precedent value for the entire outlet → 3+.

Level 3 — Significant incident, broad impact or precedent (±1.5)

A specific event that creates a precedent or affects how an institution operates; sustained ignoring of a norm; an attack on the independence of a specific institution without long-term compromise.

Examples:

Sweeping amendment passed under expedited reading without a consultation procedure (typically as a response to a "crisis" that isn’t one).
Prime minister publicly attacks a specific judge in an ongoing case in a way that can be read as pressure on the decision.
Senate or president rejects a constitutional-court appointment for political (not substantive) reasons — first occurrence in a series.
Politician files a SLAPP suit worth millions of crowns against an investigative journalist.
A Constitutional Court ruling that the government does not formally acknowledge within 30 days but does not yet fully ignore.
Public-broadcaster law with proposals that change political control over electing the boards, but at an early stage (introduced, not adopted).
The Office for Supervision of Political-Party Finances has its powers weakened (budget cut > 30 %, competence changes).

When NOT: if the event is part of a clearly identifiable structural trend → escalation to 4. If it’s in the "grey zone" between 2 and 3 → 2 + comment.

Level 4 — Serious breach of a norm or process (±3.0)

An action with a direct impact on how a key institution functions, that creates a significant precedent, or that clearly crosses constitutional limits. Typically requires 2+ independent sources and an explicit reference to the violated norm.

Examples:

Government systematically refuses to take measures arising from a Constitutional Court ruling for > 60 days.
Disciplinary procedure changed to make it easier for a politically controlled body to remove judges (proposal + adoption in one chamber).
A public broadcaster cancels a programme or removes a host after demonstrable political pressure.
A major outlet (top 5 in Czechia) is acquired by a person with an active political role without a credible separation guarantee.
Prime minister fails to declare assets worth tens of millions in their statement.
A law passed restricting the right to demonstrate under specified conditions (e.g. "safety zones" with vague definitions).
Politically motivated removal of an intelligence-service director without substantive cause.

When NOT: if it is already part of an identifiable pattern with further escalation → 5. If a successful correction follows quickly (law withdrawn, court ruling overturned) → downgrade to 3 + persistent.

Level 5 — Structural shift, constitutional crisis, systemic change (±6.0)

Changes that fundamentally alter the institutional environment. The maximum possible impact for a single event. Requires 3+ independent sources and typically a response from international institutions (EC, GRECO, Venice Commission).

Examples:

Adopted and effective amendment to the Constitutional Court Act changing the appointment procedure to favour the ruling majority.
A passed law allowing a politically controlled body to remove judges without disciplinary proceedings.
A passed amendment to the Czech Television/Radio Act introducing direct political election of the director-general by the Chamber of Deputies.
Government ignores repeated Constitutional Court rulings for > 6 months in a way that violates a specific civic right.
An NGO law introducing a mandatory "foreign agents" register or tax discrimination based on funding source.
Disclosure of a structural bribery scheme involving constitutional officials with evidence from multiple independent sources.
The independence of the Czech National Bank weakened by amending the CNB Act despite a negative ECB opinion.
The Chamber of Deputies fails to convene after an election within the constitutionally prescribed deadline.

When NOT: if the event hasn’t reached adopted + effective status (just a proposal) → typically 4 + persistent. If a quick reversal follows (within 30 days) → keep at 5 but with persistent + plan to resolved.

Calibration rules

Escalation (severity upgrade)

+1 level if the event is part of a demonstrable pattern (≥ 3 similar incidents from the same actor in the last 12 weeks).
+1 level if the response of an international body (EC, GRECO, Venice Commission, ECtHR) confirms a breach of a norm.
+1 level if there is a formal document (law, decree, decision) versus a mere intent.

De-escalation (severity downgrade)

−1 level if the event is quickly corrected through an institutional mechanism (veto, Constitutional Court annulment, withdrawal) within < 30 days — but the event remains on record.
−1 level if the event is purely verbal with no practical impact after > 30 days.

When `severity: null + status: needs_review`

Sources disagree on basic facts.
Only one source and the event has potential severity 3+.
Political context obscures the institutional impact (e.g. an interpretation fight over whether something is or is not a constitutional crisis).
Claude API hesitates between two adjacent levels during classification (e.g. "3 or 4") → null + comment for a human reviewer.

Direction (`+1 / 0 / -1`)

-1: the event weakens democratic institutions.
+1: the event strengthens them (passing a major anti-corruption law, appointing an independent figure, ratifying a protective convention).
0: ambiguous; institutional impact is neither clearly positive nor negative (e.g. reorganisation without obvious benefit or harm). Rare in practice — when in doubt, prefer null + needs_review.

Anti-bias check when picking severity

Would I assign the same severity to the opposite political party? If not, adjust or escalate to needs_review.
Am I responding to facts or to mood? If mood, downgrade or null.
Do I have a specific reference to a rubric point (e.g. "§3 — broad consequences")? If not, the rationale is insufficient.