{
  "schema_version": "1.0",
  "panel_schema_version": "1.0",
  "record_id": "AIR-C02@1.0",
  "figure_id": "AIR-C02",
  "figure_version": "1.0",
  "evidence_classification": "Methodological or contextual observation",
  "last_reviewed": "2026-07-16",
  "explanatory_panel": [
    {
      "label": "What the graph shows",
      "text": "The 76 public indicators are not one interchangeable comparison pool. The current release deliberately restricts 43 of 76 indicators (56.6%) to within-country trend or snapshot/context use. Of all 76, 33 permit cross-country comparison with caveats, 32 are limited to within-country trends and 11 are restricted to snapshot or contextual display.",
      "links": []
    },
    {
      "label": "Why it matters to AIR",
      "text": "A rich dashboard can create false confidence if every available variable is treated as comparable. The permission classes make the limits of each source regime part of the analytical result rather than hiding them behind chart controls.",
      "links": []
    },
    {
      "label": "Plausible explanations",
      "text": "The distribution reflects differences in national law, survey instruments, population bases, reporting cadence, source coverage and the availability of harmonised series. Some themes therefore support broader comparison than others.",
      "links": []
    },
    {
      "label": "Alternative explanations",
      "text": "The pattern also reflects the programme’s current indicator selection and conservative governance rules. A different registry, better harmonised sources or revised metadata could change the class counts without any substantive social change.",
      "links": []
    },
    {
      "label": "What the graph does not prove",
      "text": "It does not rank themes, countries or sources by quality. It does not show that an indicator causes AIR, violence or any case outcome, and it does not turn qualified cross-country permission into full construct equivalence.",
      "links": []
    },
    {
      "label": "Relevant AIR scholarship",
      "text": "The figure operationalises the comparison boundaries in the AIR methodology and Research Laboratory. It is a map of what the current release permits, not a social-science effect estimate.",
      "links": [
        {
          "label": "AIR methodology",
          "url": "methodology.html#linked-analysis"
        },
        {
          "label": "Research Laboratory",
          "url": "research-laboratory.html"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "label": "Relevant external scholarship",
      "text": "The OECD and European Commission handbook on composite indicators emphasises transparent conceptual, normalisation, weighting and robustness decisions. AIR therefore does not collapse these classes into a country score.",
      "links": [
        {
          "label": "OECD and European Commission handbook on composite indicators",
          "url": "https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/handbook-on-constructing-composite-indicators-methodology-and-user-guide_9789264043466-en.html"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "label": "Data and methodological limitations",
      "text": "Counts refer to public indicator definitions rather than observations. The denominator excludes two methodology-only indicators and one non-plottable umbrella. The classes are project governance decisions for Social Context v1.5, every included indicator requires a visible caveat, and pairwise compatibility still depends on unit, population, country coverage, period, breaks and source metadata.",
      "links": []
    },
    {
      "label": "Questions for further research",
      "text": "Which restricted series can be harmonised without erasing substantive differences? How should uncertainty and source breaks be represented? Which additional metadata would permit stronger pairwise screening while preserving transparent exclusions?",
      "links": []
    }
  ]
}