Capture Risk Scoring Methodology

How the Congressional Capture Portal computes and assigns risk tiers to elected officials.

Overview

The Capture Risk Score is a composite index (0–100) estimating how susceptible an elected official may be to regulatory capture — the phenomenon where public officials prioritise narrow private interests over their constituents. The score is not an accusation; it aggregates publicly documented signals into a single comparable metric.

Component Weights

Each component is scored 0–100 independently, then multiplied by its weight. The weighted sum is the overall score.

Component	Weight	What It Measures	How Raw Score Is Computed
Silence Risk	25%	Topics where the official's donors have documented interests, but the official has made no public statement or taken no floor action	active_silence_flags × 10, capped at 100
Contradiction Risk	25%	Semantic contradictions between stated platform commitments and voting record	(count × 15) + (high-severity × 20) + recency boost for findings < 180 days old, capped at 100
Connection Density	20%	Mapped relationships to lobbyists, government contractors, and organised interest groups	connection_count × 4, capped at 100
Intelligence Volume	10%	Documented facts from primary and secondary sources	log₂(fact_count) × 10, capped at 100
Donor Influence	10%	Distinct donors whose interest areas overlap the official's committee jurisdiction	donor_count × 5, capped at 100
Constituency Deviation	5%	Gap between district polling priorities and the official's legislative focus	avg_deviation + (high_deviation_count × 10), capped at 100
Voting Misalignment	5%	Proportion of floor votes that contradict stated platform positions	(contradicted / total_votes) × 200, capped at 100

Tier Thresholds

Tier	Score Range	Interpretation
CRITICAL	≥ 45	Multiple strong, corroborated signals of potential capture across several dimensions
HIGH	36 – 44	Significant documented pattern warranting close scrutiny
ELEVATED	22 – 35	Notable signals in one or more categories; further investigation recommended
MODERATE	10 – 21	Some signals present but within typical range for active legislators
LOW	< 10	Minimal documented signals of potential capture
INSUFFICIENT	—	Not enough substantive evidence (facts, contradictions, votes, or baselines) to produce a meaningful score

Recency & Severity Adjustments

Contradiction findings from the last 180 days receive a recency boost (+3 per recent finding, +8 per recent high-severity finding). This ensures that freshly documented reversals carry more weight than historical ones, while not discarding older evidence entirely.

High-severity contradictions (semantic analysis score ≥ 70/100) receive an additional per-hit bonus of 20 points (vs. 15 for standard contradictions), reflecting that verified direct conflicts between stated positions and votes are the strongest capture signal.

Evidence Sufficiency Gate

Officials must have at least one of: ≥ 2 documented facts, ≥ 1 contradiction analysis, ≥ 1 voting record, or ≥ 1 constituency baseline. Without substantive evidence, the system assigns "Insufficient Evidence" rather than a misleading numeric score. Edge-only signals (silences, donors, connections) do not satisfy the gate.

Limitations

This score measures documented signals, not proven corruption. A high score means the public record contains patterns consistent with capture — it does not prove intent. Officials with extensive public records may score higher simply because more data is available. The score is recalculated on every request; it changes as new intelligence is documented. Components with sparse data across the population (donor interests, constituency baselines, voting misalignment) carry reduced weight until more data is ingested.