Every criterion traces to at least one of five evidence bases, and most to several. The Teal Paradigm reaches 11 of the 21; the rest is the half it does not reach.

1. 1
   Clear operating purpose and scopeweight 100

   What it isA written statement of what the organization exists to do, and what it does not do, specific enough to settle a boundary dispute.

   Where it comes fromOstrom and the commons research: boundaries · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal reaches this one · the full system comparison: universal across every system family compared · and our own: our failure analysis: drift-precursor

   Why that makes it load bearingUniversal across every system family compared (the full system comparison). It ranks first because it's the precondition for assessing everything else: without a stated purpose, "is authority appropriate?" and "is this drift?" are unanswerable, there's no standard to measure against. Failure analysis: purpose-drift precedes most institutional capture, because an unbounded purpose can absorb any new activity, including the one that hollows it out.

2. 2
   Safe exit and voluntary participationweight 99

   What it isA member can leave without penalty, without forfeiting what they're owed, and without needing permission, by a route written before anyone needs it.

   Where it comes fromthe anti-capture comparison: exit · Hirschman: exit/voice/loyalty · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds

   Why that makes it load bearingThe strongest single anti-coercion mechanism found across the comparison set (the anti-capture comparison). Ranked second because exit is what makes every other agreement voluntary in fact rather than in name: consent without exit is compliance. Hirschman's exit/voice/loyalty is the classical form, where exit is cheap, voice is honest; where exit is costly, voice becomes flattery.

3. 3
   Scoped, revocable authorityweight 98

   What it isAuthority attaches to a defined role, is bounded, and can be withdrawn by a process that does not depend on the holder's consent.

   Where it comes fromthe anti-capture comparison: authority · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal reaches this one · the full system comparison: universal across every system family compared · and our own: our failure analysis: charisma capture

   Why that makes it load bearingThe authority axis is where the comparison set divides most sharply between systems that distribute power and systems that concentrate it (the full system comparison). Unrevocable authority is the precondition for charismatic capture (the anti-capture comparison; failure-modes.md mode 3, charisma capture). Canon/01 carries the role-review/expiration + role-continuity CAs. Ranked third because authority that can't be bounded or withdrawn makes every downstream agreement unenforceable, there's no one who can hold the holder to it.

4. 4
   Decision process that resolves without dominationweight 97

   What it isA named method reaches decisions by integrating disagreement into a resolution the parties can carry, not by majority-override (voting that leaves an outvoted minority) and not by open-ended consensus that stalls. It is used for the decisions that matter.

   Where it comes fromOstrom and the commons research: collective choice · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal reaches this one

   Why that makes it load bearingThe governance-at-scale comparison (the governance at scale comparison) shows why vote-tally and boss-authority both fail at scale, tally manufactures a losing minority (the 49% who become "renegade cells"), authority manufactures unreported error. ACT (Agent Coherence Template, canon/01; the ACT decision model comparison) is the integration-not-tally method. failure-modes.md mode 4 (decision fatigue). Ranked fourth: below authority because a sound method needs revocable authority to enforce it, above everything else because domination in the decision layer poisons every other structure.

5. 5
   Failure containment and graceful dissolutionweight 96

   What it isFailure of a part does not cascade, and dissolution is a defined, survivable process with named recipients of what remains.

   Where it comes fromThe Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds · and our own: our failure analysis: containment+dissolution

   Why that makes it load bearingThe whole of our failure analysis, the 10 primary modes, each mapped to the requirement it stresses; #5 is where modes 7 (scaling mismatch) and 10 (hard-truth avoidance) land. Ranked fifth and weighted 96 because an organization that can't fail safely takes everything with it when it goes, the cost of its absence is unbounded. Most organizations have no dissolution plan because admitting the possibility feels like planning to fail; that avoidance is itself mode 10.

6. 6
   Transparent memory and auditabilityweight 95

   What it isDecisions, agreements, roles and finances are recorded so that a member, or an outsider with standing, can reconstruct what happened and why.

   Where it comes fromThe Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds · the full system comparison: universal across every system family compared · and our own: the living-systems lens and our own agreements

   Why that makes it load bearingThe memory axis of the full system comparison, and directly downstream of Ostrom's monitoring principle, you can't monitor what isn't recorded. failure-modes.md mode 8 (cultural drift) is undetectable without a record to compare against. Ranked sixth: memory is the substrate the accountability criteria (#19, #20, #12) all read from.

7. 7
   Capital cannot become governance controlweight 94

   What it isMoney contributed or lent confers no decision rights, no vote, no veto, no seat, no proportional say.

   Where it comes fromthe anti-capture comparison: capital-not-control · real-system cases: Zappos revert · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds

   Why that makes it load bearingThe core anti-capture safeguard; the axis on which the comparison set most sharply divides (the anti-capture comparison). Land trusts and certain co-operatives achieve it structurally; most "mission-driven" corporate forms achieve it only by policy, and revert under acquisition or funding stress. Zappos is the documented case (the Teal Paradigm mapping): management changed, ownership left intact, reverted, exactly what this criterion exists to prevent.

8. 8
   Explicit agreements before complexity growsweight 93

   What it isThe binding commitments are written, specific enough to answer yes or no, and consented to before participation.

   Where it comes fromThe Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds · the full system comparison: universal across every system family compared · and our own: our failure analysis: under-structure

   Why that makes it load bearingThe agreement layer of canon/01 is the worked example; the full system comparison shows that systems relying on culture-and-expectation rather than written agreements degrade unpredictably as they scale (failure-modes.md mode 1, under-structure). Ranked eighth because explicit agreements are the precondition for measuring most of the others, an unwritten commitment can't be checked for drift, reviewed, or onboarded into.

9. 9
   Adaptive feedback loopsweight 92

   What it isSignal from operations reaches the people who can change the structure, on a cadence, and changes actually result.

   Where it comes fromThe Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal reaches this one · and our own: our failure analysis: burnout/free-rider; the living-systems lens and our own agreements

   Why that makes it load bearingThe living-systems lens (the living-system functions comparison), functions 3 and 4: sense the signal, integrate it, route the response. failure-modes.md modes 2 (goodwill/burnout) and 5 (free-rider) both surface first as feedback the structure didn't act on. Weighted 92, high but below the constitutional criteria, because feedback improves a sound structure but can't substitute for one.

10. 10
    Role clarity, succession, and replaceabilityweight 90

    What it isEvery critical function is documented well enough for someone else to take it over, and no critical function rests on one person.

    Where it comes fromThe Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal reaches this one · and our own: our failure analysis: key-person; the living-systems lens and our own agreements

    Why that makes it load bearingour failure analysis key-person failure (mode 7 stresses succession); the role-continuity/succession CAs in canon/01 (5.EA15 handover note + a second person per critical role). Ranked tenth and weighted 90, high, and under-rated in practice: almost no organization does the "named backup per critical role" because it feels redundant until the person is gone.

11. 11
    Economic viability without dependency trapsweight 89

    What it isThe organization can sustain itself without depending on a single funder, founder subsidy, or extraction from participants.

    Where it comes fromreal-system cases: financing strangulation · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds · and our own: the living-systems lens and our own agreements

    Why that makes it load bearingnew-paradigm-economies/ and canon/04, and the ETHOS economic minimum now binding in canon/01 (commons fund · all profit in · surplus never distributed · basic-needs program · compensation ceiling · open books). The kibbutzim + Buurtzorg cases (the ETHOS Book's Teal case evidence) are the documented failure evidence: a self-managing organization inside a financing system that can strangle it, the ones most reliant on bank loans degenerated fastest. Weighted 89.

12. 12
    Conflict repair and escalation pathwaysweight 88

    What it isA named process for handling conflict, with defined escalation, that members are oriented in before they need it.

    Where it comes fromOstrom and the commons research: conflict resolution · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal reaches this one · and our own: the living-systems lens and our own agreements

    Why that makes it load bearingSolutionary Culture, now binding in canon/01 (the ETHOS uses it and orients every member before contributing; 8.EA3 ); the CPR conflict-resolution principle (accessible, low-cost conflict resolution distinguishes commons that lasted); the no-blame matrix run (the psychological matrix run on the no-blame mechanism, 7 of 20 influence patterns structurally suppressed). Weighted 88.

13. 13
    Legal and institutional compatibilityweight 87

    What it isThe structure, a single entity OR a combination of lawful structures (nonprofit + trusts + PMA + private society), can hold assets, contract, and operate lawfully without contorting its governance to fit the vehicle. Legal (statutory) and lawful (agreement-based) both qualify; the concern is fit + durability, not paradigm.

    Where it comes fromThe Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds · and our own: the living-systems lens and our own agreements

    Why that makes it load bearingecosystem-operating-agreements/ (the v0.1 template family, master core + connective layer + nonprofit + LLC modules + fillable form) and Legal/Lawful. One of the ecosystem-4 (kernel-16/ecosystem-4, the ETHOS boundaries): the ecosystem provides the entity templates. Design call (2026-07-21): the nonprofit vehicle and the requirement already agree, an ETHOS is required not to retain profit, so the vehicle most treat as a constraint is the natural fit; an LLC works too, donating its profit. Weighted 87.

14. 14
    Pluralism and non-ideological participationweight 86

    What it isParticipation requires consent to the agreements, not shared belief, identity, or worldview.

    Where it comes fromthe full system comparison: universal across every system family compared · and our own: our failure analysis: psychological mismatch

    Why that makes it load bearingthe psychological matrix (the identity/belonging influence patterns, where belonging is conditioned on belief, dissent becomes betrayal); the full system comparison. failure-modes.md mode 9 (psychological mismatch). Weighted 86: pluralism keeps an organization from narrowing into a monoculture that can't error-correct, but it's downstream of the structures (exit, decisions) that make it real.

15. 15
    Security of data, identity, access, and treasuryweight 85

    What it isAccess to funds, systems and identity is individually accounted, multi-party where it matters, and logged.

    Where it comes fromthe anti-capture comparison: custody · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds · and our own: our failure analysis: boundary leakage

    Why that makes it load bearingSIR §18–19 custody provisions; the anti-capture Design 90 / Evidence 63 gap, this is a named evidence gap (the design is specified, the operating practice, migration to key-holder groups, is pending). One of the ecosystem-4: shared custody and multisig are ecosystem-provided. failure-modes.md mode 6 (boundary leakage). Weighted 85.

16. 16
    Interoperability with existing systemsweight 83

    What it isThe organization can exchange resources and work with peer organizations on defined, non-extractive terms.

    Where it comes fromOstrom and the commons research: nested enterprises · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds · the full system comparison: universal across every system family compared · and our own: the living-systems lens and our own agreements

    Why that makes it load bearingthe full system comparison (the interop axis); canon/01 6.EA16 (replaced with the both-directions, at-cost agreement); the Resource Gatherers dependency; Ostrom's nested-enterprises principle (long-lived commons are organized in nested layers). One of the ecosystem-4. Weighted 83. Fully framework-gated: a standalone can't evidence the top band because the peer directory is an ecosystem artifact.

17. 17
    Commons and resource stewardship rulesweight 82

    What it isShared assets are stewarded under written rules, cannot be privatized, and entry of assets is clean of ownership claims.

    Where it comes fromOstrom and the commons research: boundaries+commons · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal has no counterpart for this one; it is part of what this model adds · and our own: the living-systems lens and our own agreements

    Why that makes it load bearingOstrom's boundary + commons-governance principles directly; SHUR (access + stewardship, capital separated from control); green-communities/ (land stewarded/non-collateralizable, capital in buildings). Partially framework-gated (the ETHOS boundaries): the own-commons bands are reachable alone, the shared pool needs the ecosystem. Weighted 82.

18. 18
    Onboarding, education, and cultural transmissionweight 80

    What it isNew participants are systematically brought to competence in the agreements and methods, not left to absorb them.

    Where it comes fromNo outside source. This one comes from our own failure analysis and our own agreements (the living-systems lens and our own agreements).

    Why that makes it load bearingeducation-onboarding/ and CTC orientation; the living-systems reproductive-organ lens (how a system reproduces its structure into new members); canon/01 8.EA5 (oriented in the conflict process before contributing). Weighted 80, real but second-order: onboarding transmits the structure, it isn't the structure.

19. 19
    Metrics that detect drift without gaming behaviorweight 78

    What it isA repeated, evidence-backed measurement of the gap between what was agreed and what is actually done, resistant to manipulation by those being measured.

    Where it comes fromOstrom and the commons research: monitoring · Goodhart: a measure that becomes a target · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal reaches this one

    Why that makes it load bearingMonitoring is the strongest empirically-supported CPR (Ostrom) design principle for long-lived commons. The anti-gaming qualifier is Goodhart's law: a measure that becomes a target ceases to be a good measure. Weighted only 78 despite that pedigree because it's a second-order requirement, it detects failures in the others rather than being load-bearing itself. An organization with no drift metric but sound structure survives; one with excellent metrics and no safe exit does not.

20. 20
    Periodic constitutional / structural reviewweight 76

    What it isThe agreements and structure carry review dates and are actually revisited, with each item reaffirmed, changed, or retired on the record.

    Where it comes fromOstrom and the commons research: collective choice · The Teal Paradigm mapping: Teal reaches this one · and our own: the living-systems lens and our own agreements: each names its binding agreement

    Why that makes it load bearingOstrom's collective-choice principle (those affected by the rules can modify them); canon/01 agreement-review-dates CA + the binding yearly review (7.EA6). Ranked last and weighted 76, not because it's unimportant but because its absence degrades slowly rather than fatally: an organization survives a missed review, it doesn't survive missing purpose or exit.

21. 21
    Proportional fairnessweight 91

    What it isWhat participants receive relates to contribution and need by a written method agreed in advance, visible to those it affects.

    Where it comes fromOstrom and the commons research: proportional equivalence

    Why that makes it load bearingThe second-strongest CPR design principle after monitoring: benefits proportional to costs. Perceived unfairness is a documented primary cause of group breakup, not unfairness itself, but the perception, which is why visibility of the method matters as much as the method. Added as the 21st criterion on 2026-07-19; the original 20 had no clean item for "the split is seen as fair." Weighted 91 rather than higher because it partially overlaps #7 capital, #8 agreements and #11 economics, and shouldn't double-count.

Where the weights come from

They are comparative judgements of how load-bearing each requirement is, not measurements. Ranked 100 down to 76, derived from failure analysis: what, when it's missing, most reliably ends the organization or turns it against the people in it. Purpose sits at 100 because nothing else can be assessed without it; periodic review at 76 because its absence degrades slowly rather than fatally. The ranking is arguable and we publish it so it can be argued with.

The math, in full

score = Σ(weight × criterion_score) / Σ(weight)          weights total 1,879
criterion_score = min(rubric_band, tier_cap) × tier_multiplier
confidence      = Σ(weight where tier = A) / Σ(weight) × 100

Evidence tiers: A genuine substantiating document ×1.00 (cap 100) · B partial, or authenticity/relevance uncertain ×0.85 (cap 90) · C asserted only ×0.50 (cap 50) · D vague/non-responsive ×0.

From OS Compare's file projects/os-compare/criteria-provenance.md, copied on 2026-09-23. Every weight above is read from that file at build time.