How each pillar's Community measurements roll up into City, and City into Region. Per pillar. Per transition. Method named.
This page is the index's aggregation rulebook — and where the methodological review starts. Eight transitions: four pillars (Environmental, Social, Economic, Governance) × two scale-boundaries (Community → City, City → Region). Each cell names the method (weighted mean, prefix-projection, conditional aggregation, pass-through), its current specification status, and an honest confidence reading. Methodology v0 has not specified all eight transitions equally. The gaps are flagged.
The matryoshka transitions — Community → City → Region
Two scale-boundaries are inside the governance matryoshka — the nested Community → City → Region structure. Beyond Region the table ends because the matryoshka ends — Bioregion and Planet are not aggregation transitions and their rules are addressed in Boundary Context.
| Pillar | Community → City | City → Region |
|---|
Bioregion and Planet are not aggregation transitions.
The Vivanco framework's role-table is explicit: Community is operational, City and Region are governance, Bioregion and Planet are boundary. There is no “Region → Bioregion” aggregation rule because no human institution at the Bioregion scale receives a composite from below and acts on it. Bioregional biocapacity and planetary boundaries are read — they constrain what the Region score can be called successful. See the Boundary Context surface for the full reference dashboard.
Governance × (City → Region) is the thinnest transition in v0. When only 3 of N municipalities publish open data of comparable cadence, the Region open-data score should not be a weighted mean over all N. The methodology v0 does not yet specify whether thin-coverage cells use (a) confidence-weighted mean with an explicit confidence pill, (b) a hard coverage-threshold below which the cell reads structural placeholder, or (c) a Bayesian update over prior publication. Until the rule is specified, the dashboard cannot render Governance × Region's score honestly. This is an open methodology question in v0, in review toward v1.
Three other transitions have similar but less acute under-specification — Economic × (Community → City) on the MRL projection function; Environmental × (City → Region) on EUROSTAT MFA (material-flow accounting) lag handling; Social × (City → Region) on the MSA (metropolitan statistical area) threshold.
The composite each tier computes
At each tier the score is the FCI formula computed over the cells assigned to that tier. Per-tier FCI is then carried up via the method named in the table above. The composite formula is the same at each ring of the matryoshka:
Where DIDO (data in, data out — the capacity side) is the weighted mean of the cell-tier DIDO components, PITO (products in, trash out — the extractive side) is the corresponding composite, and ρ is the action-latency coefficient measured at the tier the observation lives in — and only where a fitted-response protocol exists at that tier. Region-tier ρ is currently mock — ρ protocol pending: no partner operates a regional policy-adoption tracker, so it renders with the mock label until a protocol is specified. ρ is never silently defaulted to 1.
Confidence is the dashboard team's assessment of whether the rendered score is currently defensible under methodological review. Very low confidence means the rendered score should carry the structural-placeholder hatch in the matrix view.
↪ Next: see the prefix relationship drawn out in the drilldown · or return to the aggregation atlas.