490% VERIFICATION FAILURE: 'reportedly increased by 490%' — source, methodology, and definition not identified
'Dangerous speech' referenced against Benesch framework — a genuine definitional strength. The Early Warning Project model is cited with documentation. The critical definitional failure is the 490% figure: cited as 'reportedly' without identifying whose definition of 'hate speech' produced that measurement, what the counting methodology was, or whether the figure has been independently verified. For a policy report, citation accuracy is the primary D1 concern, and this is a significant unverified citation on the most politically significant quantitative claim.
Not applicable for Policy Report type.
Not applicable for Policy Report type.
Institutional Swap Test requires external verification across comparable cases
Document scope — India country-level mass atrocity risk — matches title and content. The Early Warning Project covers multiple countries, providing evidence of institutional scope symmetry. Institutional Swap Test: does USHMM's Simon-Skjodt Center apply the same analytical standards and evidential thresholds to comparable cases (anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh and Pakistan, anti-Christian violence in Nigeria)? Score of 7 reflects adequate internal scope-claim alignment with a flag for the institutional comparison requiring external verification.
piieindia.org (6 citations) — provenance and advocacy positions require verification
Source profile is the strongest in the non-survey portion of the calibration corpus. Top five domains: cfr.org (24), state.gov (18), uscirf.gov (12), ohchr.org (11), hrw.org (10) — all established independent institutions. USHMM as US government museum is genuinely independent from the private advocacy ecosystem, though it introduces US foreign policy perspective as a potential influence. piieindia.org (6 citations) requires a provenance trace — institutional identity and advocacy positions not confirmed.
490% figure unverifiable against cited source — most widely cited statistic has no traceable methodology
Policy report D6 assesses citation accuracy: do statistical claims appear in and accurately represent their cited sources? The 490% figure is the critical failure: presented with 'reportedly' but no citation to the original methodology. The 90% figure (politicians involved being BJP members) also lacks a visible primary source. Strong sourcing for contextual and historical claims. The institutional sourcing infrastructure is adequate; the specific quantitative claims driving the report's policy conclusions are not independently verifiable.
The strongest D7 score in the non-survey portion of the calibration corpus. USHMM is a US federal institution with full transparency: Congressional funding, public governance, named professional staff, peer-reviewed statistical model (Early Warning Project) with documented methodology. This is what institutional authority should look like. The contrast with the unverified 490% figure is the core tension of this report: the institutional infrastructure is research-grade but the specific quantitative claim most widely cited is not.
No limitations section; Early Warning Project model contestation not acknowledged
A 6,614-word policy brief from an institution with the USHMM's authority should include a limitations section. The Early Warning Project statistical model has been contested in academic literature — those contests are not referenced. Evidence of India's democratic institutions functioning (Supreme Court rulings, opposition electoral wins, press freedom) is not acknowledged as counter-evidence to the atrocity risk framing. The 'What to Watch' section identifies only risk escalation factors, not risk mitigation factors.