FCPI Index
How FCPI Scores Work on This Site
FCPI is a formal method, but this journal presents it in a public-facing score format so cases can be read quickly and compared consistently.
How FCPI Scores Work on This Site
FCPI is a formal method, but this journal presents it as a public-facing score so cases can be read quickly and compared consistently. The aim is to keep the method rigorous without making every case page read like a technical appendix.
- Q1How close does the system sit to the point of finality?
- Q2How critical is the dependent function to the user's operations?
- Q3How concentrated has dependency on this layer become?
- Q4How hard would substitution actually be under real time pressure?
- Q5How difficult would transition be once stress arrives?
- Q6How much leverage does control of this layer confer on the holder?
- CFConcentration of Finality — how centralised is the decisive completion point?
- JCJurisdictional Control — who governs the decisive layer in legal terms?
- EAEnforceability Asymmetry — who can compel whom under conflict?
- SFSubstitutability of Finality — how hard is replacement under time pressure?
- TOPTemporal Override Power — how easily can finality be interrupted externally?
FCPI is a formal method, but this journal presents it in a public-facing score format so cases can be read quickly and compared consistently.
The aim is to keep the method rigorous without making every case page read like a technical appendix.
What you see on an FCPI case page
A case page should always tell you:
- the primary function being assessed;
- the unit of analysis being scored;
- the assessment horizon;
- the FCPI score;
- the band;
- the confidence level;
- a short judgment paragraph;
- and, where relevant, optional overlays.
That is the public layer. The underlying method remains the five-parameter FCPI framework.
How the number is calculated
The underlying FCPI method produces a value between 0.0 and 1.0.
It is calculated as the average of five parameters:
- Concentration of Finality (CF)
- Jurisdictional Control (JC)
- Enforceability Asymmetry (EA)
- Substitutability of Finality (SF)
- Temporal Override Power (TOP)
On this site, that value is shown as a score out of 100 for readability.
Examples:
- 0.72 becomes 72
- 0.54 becomes 54
- 0.85 becomes 85
The arithmetic does not change. Only the display format changes.
What the band means
The number is paired with a band so readers can interpret it quickly.
0–20 — Low
Finality is distributed enough that governance and architecture can plausibly substitute for ownership.
21–40 — Conditional
Sovereignty may be workable without ownership, but only under bounded conditions.
41–60 — Phase-dependent
The system may be manageable in normal times and unstable under stress, or manageable over long horizons and brittle over short ones.
61–80 — High
The decisive layer remains structurally external. Governance helps, but does not solve the core exposure.
81–100 — Extreme
Control over finality is so concentrated and external that sovereignty without ownership or direct control is implausible.
What the confidence level means
Confidence describes how strong the assessment is, not how serious the risk is.
Confidence A
The function, unit, horizon, and evidence are all strong. Substitutes and override conditions are relatively clear.
Confidence B
The assessment is well-grounded, but some uncertainty remains around substitutes, timing, or real stress behaviour.
Confidence C
The case is plausible but only partially evidenced. Important assumptions remain open.
Confidence D
The case is an early signal or exploratory assessment. It should be read as provisional.
A high FCPI score with low confidence is still important. It means the case deserves closer work, not blind certainty.
Why the site sometimes speaks in six questions
This journal uses two layers at once:
- a reader-facing layer that asks broad practical questions in plain language;
- a method layer that scores five formal parameters.
That is intentional. The public explainer asks broad questions such as how close a system sits to finality, how critical the dependent function is, how concentrated dependency has become, how hard substitution would be, how difficult transition would be under time pressure, and how much leverage control of the layer confers. The formal method then translates those concerns into a stricter score through the five FCPI parameters.
So there are not two different indices here. There is one formal method and one public explanation layer.
What is not part of the FCPI number
Not everything shown on a case page is part of the FCPI arithmetic.
Rationale — The one-paragraph judgment is explanatory. It tells readers why the score is what it is.
Horizon — A score without a time horizon should not be trusted. A system may be replaceable in three years and non-replaceable in thirty days.
Overlays — Optional overlays are secondary lenses. A case may include a sovereignty overlay or a crime overlay to show how strongly it intersects with a specific research track on this site. These overlays do not change the FCPI number. They are there to help readers navigate relevance across the journal.
How to read an FCPI case responsibly
Do not read the number alone. Read the case in this order:
- Function — what exactly is being completed?
- Unit — what layer is actually being scored?
- Horizon — over what time frame?
- Score and band — how exposed is finality?
- Confidence — how strong is the evidence?
- Rationale — why this score rather than another?
That discipline matters more than false precision.
A simple rule of thumb
The FCPI score is not a prophecy.
It is a disciplined claim about where leverage sits if conditions harden.
The closer a system sits to finality, the harder it is to govern around it once stress arrives.