Methodology Document

Citixen Transparency Index

A real-time, endogenous transparency index for local governments. Computed automatically from operational data within the Citixen platform.

Version1.0
Effective dateMay 2026
Data licenseCC BY 4.0
LanguageEN / ES
01

Overview

The Citixen Transparency Index (CTI) measures how transparently a local government manages its public works and projects within the Citixen platform. Unlike traditional transparency assessments — which rely on external evaluators and produce annual retrospective reports — the CTI is computed in real time from the government's actual operational behavior.

The index does not measure impact, policy quality, or citizen satisfaction. It measures observable, verifiable behaviors that indicate a government's commitment to keeping citizens informed about the state, progress, and results of public projects.

Design principle: The CTI is intentionally simple. Four criteria, equal weights, no subjective assessments. A citizen, journalist, or multilateral analyst should be able to understand it in under 60 seconds.
02

Scope & eligibility

The CTI applies to local governments operating in Community mode. Each government manages a portfolio of public projects published on their transparency portal.

Eligible projects

Only projects with projectType: "light_public" are included. Cancelled projects are excluded from all calculations. Projects from Civic Credits mode (funded projects with citizen-allocated credits) are not part of this index.

Minimum data threshold

A government must have at least 3 non-cancelled projects to receive a CTI score. Below this threshold, the index returns "Insufficient data" instead of a numeric score. This prevents statistically insignificant portfolios from generating misleading results.
03

Criteria & formulas

The CTI is a composite score of 4 criteria, each weighted equally at 25 points, for a maximum of 100 points. The final score is rounded to the nearest integer.

C1

Updating

Actualización
25 pts

What percentage of active projects have been updated in the last 30 days?

Score = (updated_active_projects / total_active_projects) × 25

Active projects: Projects with status planning or in_progress.

Updated: A project is considered updated if it has received a public update or recorded activity within the last 30 calendar days.

Zero active projects: If a government has no active projects (all completed or not started), this criterion scores 25/25 (neutral, not punitive).

C2

Evidence

Evidencia
25 pts

What percentage of completed projects include photographic evidence?

Score = (completed_with_photos / total_completed) × 25

Photographic evidence: At least one image file attached to the project's documentation.

Zero completed projects: Scores 25/25 (neutral).

C3

Timeliness

Cumplimiento
25 pts

What percentage of projects with deadlines are on schedule?

Score = (on_time_projects / projects_with_deadline) × 25

On time (completed): Completion date ≤ estimated end date.

On time (active): Estimated end date has not yet passed.

Delayed status: Projects explicitly marked as delayed are counted as not on time.

No deadline set: Projects without an estimated end date are excluded from the denominator.

Zero projects with deadlines: Scores 25/25 (neutral).

C4

Budget disclosure

Cobertura presupuestaria
25 pts

What percentage of projects have a declared budget?

Score = (projects_with_budget / total_projects) × 25

Budget disclosed: A project has a declared estimated budget greater than zero.

Denominator: All non-cancelled projects in the government's portfolio.

Zero projects: Scores 25/25 (neutral).

Neutral zero rule: When a criterion has no applicable projects to evaluate (empty denominator), it scores 25/25 rather than 0/25. This prevents newly onboarded governments from starting at 0%, which would penalize adoption and create a perverse incentive to delay joining the platform.
04

Project badges

In addition to the government-level index, individual projects receive badges — binary indicators of specific positive behaviors. Badges are purely positive: the absence of a badge is the signal. There are no negative badges.

📷

Has evidence

The project includes at least one photograph in its documentation.

🔄

Recently updated

The project has recorded activity within the last 30 days.

💰

Budget disclosed

The project has a declared estimated budget greater than zero.

On schedule

The project has not exceeded its estimated deadline and is not marked as delayed.

Completed with evidence

The project is completed and includes photographic documentation of results.

05

Known limitations

The CTI is transparent about what it can and cannot measure. Users of this data should consider these limitations when interpreting scores.

Self-reported data

All four criteria rely on data entered by the government itself. The government controls project timelines, status updates, budget declarations, and evidence uploads. There is no external verification layer in v1.0. A government could theoretically inflate its score by setting lenient deadlines or uploading low-quality evidence.

Measures process, not impact

The CTI measures documentary compliance — whether the government keeps the public informed about project status. It does not measure whether projects achieve their intended social outcomes. A government can score 100/100 while executing projects of questionable impact.

Equal weights are arbitrary

The 4 × 25% weighting is a deliberate simplification. Meeting deadlines may matter more to citizens than uploading photos. The current version prioritizes legibility over precision. Future versions may introduce differential weighting based on empirical data.

No trend analysis

The v1.0 index is a point-in-time snapshot. It does not capture trajectory — a government improving from 40 to 80 is indistinguishable from one that has always been at 80. Historical snapshots will be introduced in a future version.

Small portfolio bias

The minimum threshold of 3 projects mitigates extreme cases, but a government with 3 projects is still more volatile than one with 30. Scores should be interpreted with portfolio size in mind (published alongside the score as projectCount).

Mitigation: social pressure

While the CTI v1.0 has no external audit, Citixen's participation features (citizen consultations, proposals, and project comments) introduce social counter-pressure: reputational costs for governments that manipulate data. The combination of self-reported metrics and social oversight produces a more robust signal than either mechanism alone.

06

Governance & versioning

Versioning policy

The methodology is versioned using semantic versioning (MAJOR.MINOR). Changes to criteria definitions, weights, or eligibility thresholds increment the MAJOR version. Clarifications, typo fixes, or additions that do not change computation logic increment the MINOR version.

Non-retroactivity

When a new version is published, historical data computed under previous versions is preserved with its original methodology version tag. Scores are never retroactively recalculated. This ensures that time-series data remains comparable within each methodology version.

Changelog

VersionDateChanges
v1.0May 2026Initial release. 4 criteria × 25 points, 5 project badges, minimum 3-project threshold.
07

Data license & citation

License

All CTI scores and associated metadata are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. You are free to share and adapt the data for any purpose, including commercial use, provided you give appropriate credit.

How to cite

Citixen Technologies. (2026). Citixen Transparency Index — Methodology v1.0. Retrieved from https://citixen.org/transparency-methodology

Machine-readable data

CTI scores are available programmatically via Citixen's public API. Documentation and endpoints will be published at a future date. Organizations interested in early access can contact data@citixen.org.

Interested in using CTI data?

If you represent a multilateral organization, government agency, research institution, or media outlet and are interested in accessing CTI data or collaborating on methodology development, we would like to hear from you.

Contact us →