# NEEC Evaluation: Doughnut Economics

**Scoring document — Step 1b; scored in Session 14, natively on the v2
structure; in the canonical corpus (`neec_scores.csv`) since Session 16.**
Follows Appendix H.9's submission template, matching the research depth and
disclosure norms established by the Georgism/LVT (Session 6) and Mutual
Credit/LETS (Session 7) evaluations. Scored against the fully-specified
26-criterion v2 structure (Section 12.3, Appendix H.7v2). Its row was added
to `neec_scores.csv` in Session 16; it is not yet a Part I entry of the
Report (the Step 5 revision adds it). It has not been independently
cross-checked by a second scorer (H.9 Step 6) — flagged as open per this
project's disclosure norms (`NEEC_CONTRIBUTING.md` §2, Appendix H.6).

---

## 16 [pending renumbering]. Doughnut Economics

### Overview

**Doughnut Economics** is the framework developed by economist Kate
Raworth, first sketched in a 2012 Oxfam discussion paper ("A Safe and Just
Space for Humanity: Can we live within the doughnut?") and elaborated in her
2017 book *Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century
Economist* (revised 2022, adding an "Afterword: Doughnut Economics in
Action"). The doughnut is a visual and conceptual device: an inner ring —
the **social foundation** — below which people fall short of life's
essentials (twelve dimensions drawn from and complementary to the UN
Sustainable Development Goals: food, water, health, education, income and
work, peace and justice, political voice, social equity, gender equality,
housing, networks, and energy), and an outer ring — the **ecological
ceiling** — beyond which humanity overshoots the planet's capacity (the nine
planetary boundaries first proposed by Rockström et al. in 2009: climate
change, ocean acidification, chemical pollution/novel entities, nitrogen and
phosphorus loading, freshwater withdrawal, land-system change, biodiversity
loss, air pollution/aerosol loading, and stratospheric ozone depletion). The
doughnut-shaped space between the two rings is where Raworth argues an
economy should aim to keep humanity: meeting everyone's needs within the
means of the living planet. The book organizes its argument into "seven
ways to think like a 21st-century economist" — Change the Goal, See the Big
Picture, Nurture Human Nature, Get Savvy with Systems, Design to Distribute,
Create to Regenerate, and Be Agnostic about Growth.

**Scope decision (the single most consequential choice in this evaluation,
disclosed up front rather than discovered criterion by criterion).**
Doughnut Economics is, by Raworth's own explicit framing and by the
description used throughout Doughnut Economics Action Lab's (DEAL's) own
materials, a *compass, not a map*: it specifies the goalposts (the social
floor and the ecological ceiling) and a diagnostic methodology for locating
a place relative to them, but it deliberately does **not** commit to any
single redistributive, ownership, or monetary mechanism for closing the gap.
Its own "Design to Distribute" chapter — the part of the book most directly
relevant to NEEC's Material Security domain — draws on and cites Henry
George and the land-value-tax literature (Gaffney, Harrison), Michael
Hudson, cooperative ownership (Mondragón-style), Elinor Ostrom's and Michel
Bauwens's commons scholarship, and complementary-currency design, but
presents these as a *menu* of compatible strategies rather than as DE's own
adopted policy. DEAL's current "Doughnut Economics for Policymakers"
material (accessed 2026) makes this explicit, posing redistribution as a set
of open questions for governments to answer for themselves — "Who owns the
key assets for generating financial wealth? … How can they be reformed or
phased out?" — rather than prescribing an answer. This is a materially
different, and more diffuse, situation than any other targeted-mechanism
system already in this corpus: Georgism commits to exactly one pairing (a
land value tax plus a Citizen's Dividend); Mutual Credit/LETS commits to
exactly one credit design (zero-sum, capped, endogenous). Doughnut Economics
commits to *none* of the specific mechanisms it discusses approvingly —
which several of the criteria below, especially in Domain 1 and parts of
Domain 4, turn out to hinge on directly. This evaluation scores Doughnut
Economics as the framework, its diagnostic tooling, and its actual
real-world implementation record — not as "whatever the most ambitious
jurisdiction could in principle layer on top while remaining consistent with
doughnut thinking." A reader wanting to evaluate a specific hybrid (e.g., a
"Doughnut + Land Value Tax" or "Doughnut + UBI" combination some city might
adopt) should look to this project's separate evaluations of those
component mechanisms rather than import this evaluation's scores for that
different, more committed system.

**Evidentiary tier (Appendix H.6) — mixed, and unusually split along exactly
the line the scope decision above draws.** The *diagnostic and planning*
apparatus is squarely in the real-world implementation tier and is unusually
well-evidenced for a system this recently proposed: the City Portrait
methodology (piloted 2019 in Philadelphia, Portland, and Amsterdam through
the Thriving Cities Initiative — a collaboration of Biomimicry 3.8, C40
Cities, Circle Economy, and DEAL) has since been applied, in whole or in
part, by more than 50 local and regional governments worldwide as of 2025,
plus one national-scale application (Costa Rica). The global doughnut model
itself received its first peer-reviewed publication in October 2025, in
*Nature* (Fanning & Raworth, "Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries
monitors a world out of balance"), turning what had been a single 2017
snapshot into an annual-monitoring time series across 35 indicators,
2000–2022. Against this, the *redistributive/ownership* mechanisms that
would be needed to satisfy several NEEC Material Security and Ethical
Integrity criteria are, per the scope decision above, simply not part of
what Doughnut Economics itself proposes — they are citations to other
frameworks' components (several of them already separately evaluated
elsewhere in this corpus), not DE's own real-world-implemented or even
theoretically-committed mechanism. Each criterion below states plainly
which side of this split it falls on.

---

### Domain 1: Material Security

#### C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** The social foundation's twelve dimensions directly name
several of the goods NEEC's own C1.1 measures against (food, water, health,
education, income and work), and the City Portrait process operationalizes
these into dozens of locally-tracked indicators against which a place's
shortfall is made visible and public — Barcelona's 2021 Portrait, for
instance, used more than 150 indicators developed through workshops
involving over 50 stakeholders, and found genuine, publicly-reported local
gaps (access to green space, environmental justice) alongside areas of
relative strength (healthcare, education). This diagnostic step does lead,
in practice, to real if city-specific policy responses: Amsterdam's Circular
Strategy 2020–2025 (17 circular-economy policy directives) and Portland's
"From Excess to Access" program (free donated construction materials
helping low-income property owners bring buildings up to code) are both
directly attributable to a City Portrait process. No jurisdiction has
reported, nor does the framework project, a specific poverty-elimination
*rate*, and the mechanism throughout is "diagnose, then let the jurisdiction
choose its own response" rather than a specified provision — a materially
weaker claim than a system with its own transfer mechanism would make.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — a real, well-evidenced diagnostic
methodology naming the right dimensions and demonstrably triggering some
real (if modest and city-specific) policy responses, but no committed
provision mechanism and no elimination-rate claim or finding anywhere in the
evidence reviewed.

#### C1.2a Wealth Building for Resilience: 0.0 (Structural Failure) — flagged as a contestable score

**Rationale:** This criterion asks whether participants can build a
$70,000+/20-year household buffer through the system's own mechanism, per
Section 12.3's own restated threshold. Doughnut Economics names the
*categories* of wealth whose ownership and control drive inequality — land,
housing, money creation, enterprise, technology, knowledge — and its
"Design to Distribute" chapter cites real accumulation vehicles (cooperative
capital accounts, community land trusts, sovereign-style commons) as
compatible examples. But, per the Overview's scope decision, DE does not
itself adopt any of these as its own mechanism; DEAL's current
policymaker-facing material poses "who owns the key assets" as a question
for governments to answer, not an answer DE supplies. No implementation
reviewed for this evaluation — Amsterdam, Barcelona, Nanaimo, Costa Rica, or
any of the 50+ other places identified by DEAL's own map — has established a
DE-attributable asset-accumulation vehicle for residents; the concrete
policy outputs located (Amsterdam's circular-economy directives, Portland's
building-materials program, New Zealand's community-garden "Doughnut Hubs")
are consumption-, infrastructure-, or service-level interventions, not
wealth-building ones.

**Score Justification:** Structural failure (0.0) — no accumulation
mechanism exists as part of the framework itself, for any participant, in
any implementation reviewed. **Flagged as contestable**: a different
reasoner could argue that citing and endorsing specific real
accumulation-vehicle literature (Georgist, cooperative, commons) as
compatible with the doughnut goal is itself enough evidence of intent to
warrant the 0.5 band Degrowth's own C1.2a anchor uses for "collectively
rather than individually held" mechanisms. This evaluation reads Degrowth's
anchor as resting on Degrowth committing to its *own* named collective
institution (community land trusts, cooperatives, as Degrowth's own
mechanism) rather than citing others' mechanisms as compatible precedent —
a real, but genuinely arguable, distinction.

#### C1.2b Prevention of Exploitative Accumulation: 0.0 (Structural Failure) — flagged as a contestable score

**Rationale:** This criterion asks whether the system structurally prevents
wealth concentration sufficient to enable governance capture — a Gini <0.35
threshold, per Section 12.3. Doughnut Economics has no cap, dissolution
mechanism, progressive-taxation commitment, or land-rent capture of its own;
as with C1.2a, it names the problem (concentrated ownership of land, money
creation, and enterprise) and cites compatible literature without adopting
a mechanism. This makes Doughnut Economics' case for C1.2b *weaker* than
either Georgism's (which commits to capturing land rent specifically,
scoring 0.5 here) or Mutual Credit/LETS's (whose zero-sum, capped design is
this corpus's cleanest C1.2b anchor, scoring 1.0) — both of those systems
commit to one specific channel; Doughnut Economics commits to none. The
2025 *Nature* update (Fanning & Raworth) itself documents, rather than
resolves, this gap at the global scale: the richest 20% of nations (15% of
the global population) are responsible for more than 40% of annual
ecological overshoot while accounting for only about 2% of the social
shortfall, and the poorest 40% of countries (43% of the population) account
for only 4% of the overshoot but 63% of the shortfall — a stark, current,
well-evidenced finding about the persistence of exactly the concentration
this criterion asks whether the system prevents, published by the
framework's own authors as a monitoring finding rather than as an
indication that DE itself is closing this gap.

**Score Justification:** Structural failure (0.0) — no structural
prevention mechanism exists; the framework's own 2025 monitoring update
documents the underlying concentration persisting and worsening rather than
narrowing. **Flagged as contestable** for the same underlying reason as
C1.2a — a scorer weighing DE's explicit "harness the commons" language more
heavily could land at 0.5 instead; this evaluation's read is that citing
compatible mechanisms is not the same order of commitment as adopting one.

#### C1.3 Housing Security: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** Housing is one of the twelve explicit social-foundation
dimensions, and City Portraits in multiple places (Barcelona, Glasgow, and
others) track housing affordability and stability as named indicators
against which local shortfall is measured and reported. Real, if modest,
policy outputs exist: Portland's "From Excess to Access" program
specifically targets low-income property owners' ability to bring housing
up to code. Against this, no jurisdiction reviewed has implemented a
housing-decommodification, rent-stabilization, or community land trust
program that is itself a Doughnut Economics mechanism (as opposed to a
pre-existing local policy that happens to coexist with a City Portrait
process) — the connection remains diagnostic and indicator-level rather than
a specified housing-security design.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — a genuine, explicit social-
foundation dimension with real diagnostic tracking and at least one
concrete (if narrow) real-world policy output, but no housing-specific
mechanism of DE's own.

#### C1.4 Automation Resilience: 0.0 (Structural Failure)

**Rationale:** Raworth's book does address automation directly — Chapter 6
asserts that artificial intelligence "is displacing people with near
zero-humans-required production," a claim independently flagged by more
than one critical reviewer (Noah Smith's review, syndicated by Asia Times,
notes the claim is offered without citation and goes further than even
mainstream automation-skeptical economists such as Daron Acemoglu would
assert). What the book and the subsequent implementation record do not
supply is any operational response: no income-distribution mechanism
decoupled from wages, no contribution-recognition system, no automatic
demand-maintenance device. This differs in kind from the systems elsewhere
in this corpus that score 0.5 here despite lacking a *sufficient* mechanism
(Nordic's unemployment benefits, Georgism's indirect land-value-capitalization
argument, Integral's ITC) — each of those has *some* real, if inadequate,
buffer. Doughnut Economics' social foundation is a measurement target (are
people falling short on income and work?) rather than a provision
mechanism, and nothing in the framework or its implementations connects
automation specifically to any distributive response.

**Score Justification:** Structural failure (0.0) — automation is named as
a concern but is met with no operational mechanism of any kind, a cleaner
absence than even the partial-credit cases elsewhere in the corpus, each of
which has at least some (if insufficient) buffer.

#### C1.5 Universal Wealth Access (narrowed — access breadth only): 0.0 (Structural Failure)

**Rationale:** This narrowed criterion asks about access *breadth* to an
*active asset-growth mechanism* — not accumulation adequacy (C1.2a) or
concentration prevention (C1.2b). Access breadth would, in principle, be
one of Doughnut Economics' stronger claims: the framework's diagnostic and
planning tools are explicitly designed to be participatory and open to a
jurisdiction's entire population, with no membership gate or employment
requirement of any kind. But C1.2a's analysis already establishes there is
no asset-growth mechanism at all for that openness to apply to — following
the identical reasoning already established for Georgism, Mutual
Credit/LETS, and, originally, Integral's own C1.2/C1.5 pairing that first
motivated the v2 split (Section 12.1).

**Score Justification:** Structural failure (0.0) — for the same
underlying design-level reason as C1.2a, not an access-breadth problem;
access would be about as open as any system in this corpus if there were a
mechanism to access.

**Domain 1 Total: 1.0/6 (17%)** — Four of six Material Security criteria
fail outright (C1.2a, C1.2b, C1.4, C1.5), each traceable to the same root
cause identified in the Overview: Doughnut Economics names the problems
this domain measures with unusual precision (its social-foundation
dimensions map onto NEEC's own concerns almost one-to-one) but commits to no
mechanism of its own for solving any of them. This is, at time of writing,
the lowest Domain 1 score of any system in this corpus other than
Libertarian Minarchism's flat 0.0/6 — a genuinely striking result for a
framework with this much real-world reach and reputation, discussed further
under Final Assessment.

---

### Domain 2: Human Autonomy

#### C2.1 Freedom from Coercion: 0.0 (Structural Failure)

**Rationale:** Doughnut Economics operates as a planning and diagnostic
overlay on whatever employment, market, and welfare institutions a host
jurisdiction already has; per the Domain 1 findings above, it introduces no
income or wealth mechanism of its own that would reduce survival-based
labor compulsion. The "See the Big Picture" chapter's institutional
pluralism — recognizing the household, the commons, the market, and the
state as legitimate co-equal domains rather than treating the market alone
as primary — is a genuine conceptual reframing, but this evaluation found
no evidence that it has, in any implementation, actually reduced anyone's
practical dependence on wage income. Unlike Georgism (whose dividend
provides some real, if modest, reduction in survival-based compulsion) or
Nordic Social Democracy (whose unemployment benefits do the same), Doughnut
Economics has no equivalent transfer to point to.

**Score Justification:** Structural failure (0.0) — a genuine conceptual
reframing of the economy's institutional plurality, but no operational
mechanism reducing survival-based coercion in any implementation reviewed.

#### C2.2 Labor Non-Necessity: 0.0 (Structural Failure)

**Rationale:** No unconditional baseline security of any kind — covering
essentials without work requirements, behavior conditions, or means
testing — exists anywhere in the Doughnut Economics framework or its
implementations. This follows directly from the absence of any provision
mechanism established in Domain 1.

**Score Justification:** Structural failure (0.0) — the cleanest of this
evaluation's several zero scores; no baseline-security claim of any kind is
made anywhere in the source material or the implementation record.

#### C2.3 Creative Development Opportunities: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** The "Be Agnostic about Growth" and "Create to Regenerate"
chapters articulate a value orientation that explicitly de-prioritizes
consumption-maximization in favor of thriving, and this orientation has at
least one concrete, if modest, real-world output distinguishable from the
zero-mechanism criteria above: New Zealand's DE-linked "Doughnut Hubs" —
composting facilities paired with community gardens, the first of which
opened in October 2022 — are a genuine (if small-scale) investment in
shared, non-market community space and activity. This is weaker and more
diffuse than a purpose-built reduced-hours or cultural-programming
mechanism (contrast Degrowth's own explicit 20-hour-week design), but it is
a real, locatable example rather than a purely aspirational orientation.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — a genuine value orientation away
from consumption-maximization, with at least one concrete, if small,
real-world community-space output; not a designed feature comparable to
purpose-built systems elsewhere in this corpus.

#### C2.4 Democratic Participation: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** This is one of the better-evidenced criteria in this
evaluation. The City Portrait methodology is explicitly and substantially
participatory: Barcelona's 2021 Portrait involved public participatory
events and more than 50 stakeholders across multiple workshops and
consultations; Glasgow's used five participatory workshops to co-produce a
City Portrait spanning 44 locally-derived dimensions; Brussels's BrusselsDonut
project was built through "co-construction work that involved citizens,
non-governmental organizations, scientists [and] administrations." This is
real, substantial, multi-city evidence of genuine deliberative engagement in
economic and planning decisions specifically — not merely claimed. Against
this: the process is bounded and occasional (a portrait-creation exercise
conducted periodically, not an ongoing governance architecture), advisory
rather than binding (it feeds recommendations into existing municipal
decision-making rather than replacing or constraining it), and reaches
dozens to low hundreds of stakeholders per city rather than anything
approaching population-level participation. This is a materially different,
narrower claim than Participatory Economics' or Integral's comprehensive,
continuous council architectures.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — genuine, real, multi-city
deliberative practice specifically on economic and planning questions, but
bounded, advisory, and small-scale relative to NEEC's population-level
threshold.

#### C2.5 Exit Rights and Mobility: 1.0 (Pass)

**Rationale:** Doughnut Economics operates entirely through a jurisdiction's
*existing* institutions — currency, property law, employment relations,
taxation — rather than introducing any parallel system an individual could
be locked into or need to exit. A resident of a city that references the
Doughnut in its planning documents experiences no different currency, tax
base, or property regime than a resident of a neighboring city that
doesn't; adoption and non-adoption coexist routinely (of the three original
2019 pilot cities, only Amsterdam continued active engagement with the
model in subsequent years per one academic review, while Philadelphia and
Portland's engagement lapsed, without any disruption to either city's
underlying economy). This demonstrates, rather than merely asserts, that
both individual mobility and jurisdictional disengagement are low-cost.

**Score Justification:** Pass (1.0) — no coercive lock-in at the individual
level by construction (DE alters no underlying economic institution an
individual would need to exit), and demonstrated, low-consequence
disengagement at the jurisdictional level.

**Domain 2 Total: 2.0/5 (40%)** — Two structural failures (C2.1, C2.2),
tracing to the identical root cause as Domain 1: no income or wealth
mechanism exists to reduce coercion or provide unconditional security.
Genuine strength on democratic participation (bounded but real) and exit
rights (clean, by construction) partially offsets this.

---

### Domain 3: System Resilience

#### C3.1 Crisis Response Capacity: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** Doughnut Economics has no automatic stabilizer of its own —
no benefit that scales with crisis severity, no trigger-based disbursement.
But it has a genuine, well-documented real-world crisis-response use case:
Amsterdam adopted the model explicitly as a COVID-19 recovery and resilience
strategy in April 2020, within weeks of the pandemic's onset, using it to
reframe the city's rebuilding strategy around circularity and inclusion
rather than a return to the pre-pandemic baseline — international press
coverage treated this as a notable example of a city "reimagining
sustainable development post-COVID-19." This is a real, rapid, strategic
response to an acute shock, even though it operates at the level of
policy framing rather than automatic financial stabilization.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — genuine, documented, rapid
strategic responsiveness to an acute crisis in at least one major
implementation, but no automatic benefit-scaling mechanism of any kind.

#### C3.2 Inflation Control Mechanisms: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** Doughnut Economics has no monetary system, currency, or
fiscal instrument of its own; it is layered onto whatever monetary policy
the host jurisdiction already runs, exactly the same reasoning this paper
already applies to Market Socialism, Stakeholder Capitalism, and Georgism.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — matches the established anchor for
"no innovation beyond conventional monetary policy," now confirmed for a
fourth system under this exact reasoning.

#### C3.3 Multi-Failure Resistance: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** The "Get Savvy with Systems" chapter and the City Portrait's
four-lens structure (local-social, local-ecological, global-social,
global-ecological) explicitly train a jurisdiction to see interconnections
and compound risk across social and ecological domains simultaneously — a
genuine systems-thinking capacity, evidenced directly by academic
case-study work (a 2025 study applying the four-lens framework in Glasgow
found it useful for "identify[ing] possible co-benefits and/or unintended
consequences of city policies" across a whole system rather than one
domain at a time). This is a real, if soft, resilience-relevant capacity —
seeing compound risk is a precondition for managing it — but it is a
diagnostic lens, not a designed response architecture with redundancy,
distributed production, or automatic multi-domain correction of the kind
found in the corpus's strongest scorers here (Integral, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH,
Participatory Economics, Degrowth).

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — a genuine, evidenced
systems-thinking orientation that helps a jurisdiction see compound risk
across domains, but not a designed compound-crisis response architecture.

#### C3.4 Epistemic Adaptability: 1.0 (Pass)

**Rationale:** This is one of the most directly and currently evidenced
criteria in this entire evaluation. The framework has now undergone a
documented, data-driven, peer-reviewed revision of its own global model:
the October 2025 *Nature* paper transforms the 2017 single-year snapshot
into an annually-updated monitor across 35 indicators and more than two
decades of data, explicitly designed to be revised each year going forward
("Doughnut 3.0," following an intermediate 2018 update — DEAL frames this as
the third iteration of the global model). Below the global level, individual
implementations show the same pattern: Amsterdam has updated its own City
Portrait results in successive biennial "State of the City" reports with
plans for ongoing in-house monitoring; Nanaimo built a "Monitoring Bar"
tracking 23 locally-chosen indicators specifically to give itself an ongoing
adjustment mechanism it lacked before; DEAL's own tool ecosystem (the
"Doughnut Unrolled" suite, launched April 2022) has expanded iteratively in
response to practitioner use. Few systems in this corpus have a comparably
concrete, dated, multi-level record of the framework revising itself against
new evidence.

**Score Justification:** Pass (1.0) — a rare, directly-evidenced case of
both the global framework and multiple individual implementations
undergoing real, dated, data-driven revision, including a peer-reviewed
update to the framework's own core model.

#### C3.5 Failure-Mode Transparency: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** Detection is a genuine strength here — the City Portrait's
entire purpose is to surface shortfalls and overshoots publicly, and it does
so with self-critical honesty rather than self-congratulation: Barcelona's
Portrait explicitly reported that the city "exceeds ecological thresholds in
domains like greenhouse gas emissions, material use, and nitrogen cycles"
and identified "access to green space and environmental justice" as major
local gaps. The 2025 global update performs the identical function at
planetary scale, reporting that ecological overshoot is *accelerating*
rather than narrowing. What the evidence does not establish is a reliable
*correction* mechanism following detection: what happens after a City
Portrait identifies a gap is left entirely to each jurisdiction's own
political process, with real, documented instances of limited follow-through
(a 2021 academic assessment found Amsterdam's circular-economy implementation
"incipient and limited," lacking explicit measures to reduce citizen
overconsumption; the same assessment characterized the city's prior
2015–2019 circular-economy programme as achieving only "preliminary
progress" that "fails to challenge sector behaviours or product chains").

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — genuinely strong, self-critical
detection and public reporting, but no specified correction-and-deliberation
loop, and documented real-world evidence of inconsistent follow-through
after a gap is identified.

**Domain 3 Total: 3.0/5 (60%)** — One clean pass (C3.4, unusually
well-evidenced by a dated, peer-reviewed model revision), no failures, four
partials reflecting a consistent pattern: genuine, real diagnostic and
systems-thinking strength, without the response architecture (automatic
stabilizers, designed redundancy, a specified correction loop) that would
push any of these further.

---

### Domain 4: Ethical Integrity

#### C4.1 Intergenerational Justice: 1.0 (Pass)

**Rationale:** The ecological ceiling is, by definition, an
intergenerational-preservation device — planetary boundaries exist
specifically to keep Earth-system conditions stable for future generations,
and the framework's founding 2012 paper and 2017 book both frame this as the
non-negotiable half of the doughnut. The 2025 *Nature* update sharpens this
into a concrete, current, quantified claim: current trends would need
ecological overshoot to not merely stop increasing but reverse at nearly
twice its current rate of change to safeguard Earth-system stability by
2050 — a specific, falsifiable, well-evidenced intergenerational-transfer
finding published by the framework's own authors.

**Score Justification:** Pass (1.0) — intergenerational preservation is
the ecological ceiling's defining purpose, now backed by a specific,
current, quantified 2050 trajectory finding.

#### C4.2 Ecological Compliance: 1.0 (Pass)

**Rationale:** This is Doughnut Economics' clearest, most foundational
strength and the criterion where its diagnostic apparatus is most directly
on point. The ecological ceiling *is* the nine-planetary-boundaries
framework, incorporated as a hard structural design element rather than a
constraint to be traded off against growth — "Be Agnostic about Growth" is
explicitly about refusing that trade-off. The most current planetary
boundaries science (Richardson et al. 2023, reconfirmed in the framework's
own October 2025 *Nature* update) finds six of nine boundaries already
transgressed, with a further 2025 study proposing ocean acidification as a
newly-crossed seventh; the framework's own monitoring directly incorporates
this science rather than treating ecological limits as background context.

**Score Justification:** Pass (1.0) — ecological compliance is Doughnut
Economics' foundational, definitional structure, not an add-on, and its own
current monitoring work is among the most direct, quantified engagement
with live planetary-boundary science of any system in this corpus.

#### C4.3 Racial and Gender Equity: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** Doughnut Economics has a genuinely strong, well-evidenced
feminist-economics grounding: gender equality is one of the twelve explicit
social-foundation dimensions, and the "Nurture Human Nature" chapter
directly engages feminist critiques of unpaid care work (Raworth's own
retelling of Adam Smith's mother doing his laundry is a recurring motif in
secondary literature on the book), with academic commentary describing the
framework's "feminist foundations" as resonating with the specific
unpaid-care-work burden documented in contexts such as India (where women
perform an estimated 297 minutes of unpaid care work daily against men's
31). The 2025 *Nature* update's disaggregation by national income cluster
is also a genuine, if geography- rather than race-focused, equity lens.
Against this: no explicit reparative or disproportionate-benefit mechanism
for historical *racial* disparities specifically was located in the core
framework, distinct from its general equity framing — the same
"colorblind-adjacent" gap already identified for other structurally-
equal-but-not-reparative systems in this corpus.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — a genuine, well-evidenced,
explicitly feminist theoretical foundation with a real gender-equity
dimension built into the social foundation itself, but no located
reparative mechanism specific to historical racial disparities.

#### C4.4 Power Distribution: 0.0 (Structural Failure)

**Rationale:** Doughnut Economics names power directly — DEAL's own
"Doughnut Enterprise" design principles for businesses include "be aware of
power and seek to redistribute it to improve equity amongst stakeholders" —
but this is explicitly aspirational, voluntary guidance for organizations
that choose to adopt it, not a structural mechanism (no wealth cap, no
cooperative-ownership mandate, no campaign-finance or anti-trust
provision, no equivalent of Degrowth's or Participatory Economics' own
named structural mechanisms). This gap has been identified independently
by critics writing from otherwise very different starting points: a widely-
read *Jacobin* critique argues directly that Doughnut Economics "fails to
confront the power relations that stop the economy from serving most
people's needs," pointing to the fact that Amsterdam's adoption of the
model was met with support rather than resistance from business and
government incumbents — the opposite of what a genuine power-redistribution
mechanism would predict; a *Socialist Review* assessment separately observes
that the book refers to "democratic governance" often but leaves it
undefined. This evaluation treats convergent criticism from multiple
independent, ideologically distinct sources as meaningful corroboration
rather than resting on any single source alone.

**Score Justification:** Structural failure (0.0) — power redistribution
is named as a value for individual organizations to embrace voluntarily,
not implemented as a structural mechanism anywhere in the framework or its
real-world adoption record; this specific gap has been identified
independently by critics across the political spectrum.

#### C4.5 Exploitation Elimination: 0.0 (Structural Failure)

**Rationale:** NEEC's own C4.5 rationale names three target relationships:
landlord-tenant, employer-employee, and creditor-debtor. This evaluation
located no evidence that Doughnut Economics structurally alters any of the
three in any implementation — it operates as an overlay on each host
jurisdiction's existing property, employment, and credit relations without
modifying them. This is a weaker case even than Georgism's own partial
credit here (Georgism's land value tax at least captures the unearned
component of landlord extraction specifically, as its own committed
mechanism); Doughnut Economics has no equivalent committed mechanism
touching any of the three relationships.

**Score Justification:** Structural failure (0.0) — no structural
connection to any of the three named extraction channels was identified in
the evidence reviewed, in an implementation record spanning 50+
jurisdictions.

**Domain 4 Total: 2.5/5 (50%)** — A domain split cleanly along the same
line as Domain 1: the two criteria measuring the ecological ceiling itself
(C4.1, C4.2) score a full Pass, since ecological compliance is Doughnut
Economics' actual, definitional structure — while the two criteria asking
about structural redistribution of power and elimination of extraction
(C4.4, C4.5) fail outright, for the identical "names the goal, does not
commit to a mechanism" reason already established in Domain 1. C4.3 sits
between the two clusters: a real, well-evidenced value commitment (gender
equity specifically) without a fully structural (racial-equity-specific)
mechanism.

---

### Domain 5: Implementation Viability

#### C5.1 Proven Component Foundation: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** The diagnostic and planning component — the City Portrait
methodology and its underlying indicator sets — is genuinely well-proven at
real-world scale: piloted in three cities in 2019, adopted in some form by
more than 50 local and regional governments and one national government by
2025, and, as of October 2025, anchored by a peer-reviewed publication in
one of the world's most selective scientific journals. This is a strong,
multi-year, multi-jurisdiction record for the specific thing being proven.
But the fuller "economic system" NEEC evaluates requires more than a
diagnostic apparatus, and that fuller doughnut economy — one that actually
closes the gaps the diagnostic tool identifies — has not been achieved, or
even attempted as an integrated whole, anywhere: the framework's own 2025
monitoring finds the global economy further from the doughnut than in 2000,
not closer. The redistributive components that would be needed (Domain 1)
are each separately proven elsewhere (as this project's own Georgism and
Mutual Credit/LETS evaluations already establish) but are not part of what
has actually been integrated into any Doughnut Economics implementation.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — the diagnostic component is
strongly proven at real scale; the material-security-relevant components
that would complete an actual doughnut economy remain unintegrated and
unproven as part of this specific framework, anywhere.

#### C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** No global, multi-decade staged plan with specific phases,
legal frameworks, and resource requirements exists — nothing resembling
CCO-PTF's four-phase design or even Georgism's citation of the Australian
Capital Territory's twenty-year statutory transition. What does exist, and
earns credit above a flat 0.0, is a genuine, reusable, methodologically
detailed *process* for how a jurisdiction gets started: the "Creating City
Portraits" guide (Thriving Cities Initiative, 2020) specifies a repeatable
sequence — multidisciplinary team formation, four-lens data collection,
participatory community workshops, target-setting, validation — that has
actually been followed, with local adaptation, across dozens of
jurisdictions since. This is real, live, operational methodology for the
*first* stage of adoption, comparable in kind (though narrower in scope) to
Georgism's or Mutual Credit/LETS's own partial credit here. No comparable
specification exists for scaling beyond the initial portrait-and-strategy
stage, and nothing addresses rapid (≤36-month) crisis deployment at all —
Amsterdam's COVID-era adoption (C3.1) was fast in the sense of being
politically rapid, but it reused an already-existing planning process rather
than following any specified rapid-deployment protocol.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — a real, detailed, and repeatedly-
used methodology for a jurisdiction's initial adoption stage, but no
staged multi-phase plan beyond that stage and no rapid-deployment protocol
of any kind.

#### C5.3 Partial and Parallel Deployability: 1.0 (Pass)

**Rationale:** This is likely the single most strongly and directly
evidenced criterion in this entire evaluation, and it is demonstrated rather
than projected: Doughnut Economics is, by design and by every real-world
case located, adopted piecemeal by individual, voluntarily-participating
jurisdictions that coexist completely normally with neighboring
jurisdictions that have not adopted it and with the ordinary market economy
each adopting jurisdiction otherwise continues to operate within. The
scaling record is concrete and dated: three pilot cities in 2019, expanding
to dozens by the early 2020s (Copenhagen, June 2020; Brussels, September
2020; Dunedin, October 2020; Nanaimo, December 2020; Barcelona, 2021; and
many more since), to more than 50 local and regional governments plus one
national government (Costa Rica) by 2025 — with, as C2.5 already
establishes, no disruption of any kind when a jurisdiction's engagement
later lapses.

**Score Justification:** Pass (1.0) — demonstrated, not merely claimed,
across dozens of real, independent, voluntary implementations of every
scale from a single city council to a national government.

#### C5.4 Political Coalition Potential: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** The framework's actual, dated adoption record spans a
genuinely wide political and institutional range — a Swedish municipality,
a UK county council, a Belgian regional government, a national government
in Central America, cities across North America, Europe, Australasia,
and, as of 2025–2026, a village-level local government in India (the
Maniyur Gram Panchayat, which incorporated Doughnut Economics into its
2026–27 annual budget) — evidence of real cross-context appeal that a
purely ideological or single-constituency framework would not show. Against
this, a real and recurring durability problem: of the three cities that
piloted the model together in 2019, an academic overview found that "only
Amsterdam continues to work with the model," with Philadelphia's and
Portland's engagement not sustained — direct evidence that symbolic or
initial adoption is easier to achieve than sustained operational commitment.
A doctoral case study of Cornwall Council separately documents real tension
between local political and economic realities and the ambitions of
Raworth's own vision once a jurisdiction moves from adopting the framework
to implementing it.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — genuinely broad, real,
cross-context adoption evidencing wide political appeal, weighed against a
documented, specific pattern of attrition and implementation friction once
initial political enthusiasm meets the harder work of follow-through.

#### C5.5 Cultural Adaptability: 0.5 (Partial)

**Rationale:** The geographic reach is real but skewed. A 2025 academic
survey of 50 local governments working with Doughnut Economics found the
following regional breakdown outside Europe: North America, 6; Asia, 5;
Latin America and the Caribbean, 4; Australia and New Zealand, 3; and
Sub-Saharan Africa, 1 — implying that roughly three-fifths of the sample is
concentrated in Europe specifically, consistent with a separate bibliometric
finding that the UK leads academic research on the topic, followed by the
USA and other European countries. Costa Rica's national-scale application
and the emergence of examples in Malaysia (Ipoh), India (the Maniyur
panchayat), and parts of Latin America are genuine, if still modest,
evidence of reach beyond wealthy, Western contexts — broader than
Georgism's own evidence base, though not as deep into low-income contexts
as Mutual Credit/LETS's Kenyan example. No systematic parameter-adjustment
guidance for different income contexts (comparable to CCO-PTF's own
explicit high/middle/low-income parameters) was located.

**Score Justification:** Partial (0.5) — genuine, dated, real adoption
across five continents and at least one full national government, but
concentrated roughly three-to-one in wealthy European contexts relative to
everywhere else combined, with no explicit income-context adaptation
guidance located.

**Domain 5 Total: 3.0/5 (60%)** — One clean pass (C5.3, exceptionally
well-evidenced), no failures, four partials reflecting a genuinely strong,
real, dated, multi-continent implementation record for the diagnostic and
planning apparatus specifically, tempered by documented attrition once
initial adoption meets sustained follow-through, and by geographic
concentration in wealthy contexts.

---

## Summary Scores

**Domain Totals:**
- Material Security: 1.0/6 (17%)
- Human Autonomy: 2.0/5 (40%)
- System Resilience: 3.0/5 (60%)
- Ethical Integrity: 2.5/5 (50%)
- Implementation Viability: 3.0/5 (60%)

**Overall Score: 11.5/26 (44%)**

*Explicit sum, per Appendix H.4: 1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0 + 2.5 + 3.0 = 11.5.
Independently re-verified this session by a standalone Python script that
re-sums all 26 criterion scores from the same vector used to draft this
document — matched exactly (see Verification, below).*

*Score distribution: 5 criteria at 1.0 (C2.5, C3.4, C4.1, C4.2, C5.3), 13
criteria at 0.5, 8 criteria at 0.0 (C1.2a, C1.2b, C1.4, C1.5, C2.1, C2.2,
C4.4, C4.5).*

**Structural Failures: 8** (C1.2a Wealth Building for Resilience, C1.2b
Prevention of Exploitative Accumulation, C1.4 Automation Resilience, C1.5
Universal Wealth Access, C2.1 Freedom from Coercion, C2.2 Labor
Non-Necessity, C4.4 Power Distribution, C4.5 Exploitation Elimination). Six
of the eight sit in Domain 1 or its direct Domain 2 consequences (no income
or wealth mechanism → no coercion reduction, no labor non-necessity); the
remaining two (C4.4, C4.5) trace to the identical root pattern in a
different domain. **Nearly every structural failure in this evaluation
traces to one root cause**: Doughnut Economics names, with real precision,
the material-security and power-distribution problems NEEC's own criteria
measure, but — by explicit, stated design (see Overview) — commits to no
mechanism of its own for solving any of them, leaving that entirely to each
adopting jurisdiction's own, separately-evaluated policy choices.

**Adequacy Classification: Structurally Inadequate** (8 failures, ≥6 per
Section 8.3) — a genuinely notable result given this evaluation's own
findings elsewhere about the framework's real-world reach, current
scientific anchoring, and largely favorable reputation; discussed at length
below.

**On the canonical CSV.** This evaluation was added as a row of
`neec_scores.csv` in Session 16, after review, consistent with the
scratch-before-insert discipline established for Georgism and Mutual
Credit/LETS.

---

## Final Assessment

**Key Strengths:**
- **C4.2 (Ecological Compliance) and C4.1 (Intergenerational Justice)** are
  both clean Passes, and for the strongest possible reason available in
  this corpus: the ecological ceiling *is* the current, live planetary-
  boundaries science, not an add-on or a background constraint, and the
  framework's own authors published a peer-reviewed, quantified, dated
  (October 2025) update to their global monitoring model — a rarer, more
  directly falsifiable form of evidence than most systems in this corpus
  can offer for these two criteria.
- **C3.4 (Epistemic Adaptability)** is similarly strong and similarly
  rare: a documented, multi-level record of the framework revising itself
  against new data, from the global model itself (three iterations since
  2012, the latest peer-reviewed) down to individual cities building their
  own ongoing local monitoring tools.
- **C5.3 (Partial and Parallel Deployability)** and **C2.5 (Exit Rights and
  Mobility)** are both clean Passes, demonstrated rather than projected,
  across dozens of real, voluntary, independently-adopting jurisdictions
  of every scale from a village panchayat to a national government — this
  is, in a real sense, the single most battle-tested *deployment pattern*
  in this entire corpus, even though (see Key Deficiencies) it is a
  deployment pattern for a diagnostic and planning tool rather than for a
  comprehensive economic system.
- **C2.4 (Democratic Participation)** reflects genuine, well-evidenced,
  multi-city deliberative practice — dozens to low hundreds of stakeholders
  engaged in real participatory workshops shaping real local strategy
  documents — even though it falls short of NEEC's demanding population-
  level threshold.

**Key Deficiencies:**
- **Eight structural failures, six of them traceable to one root cause**
  stated explicitly in this evaluation's own Overview: Doughnut Economics
  is, by Raworth's own description and DEAL's own current materials, a
  *compass, not a map* — it names the social-foundation and power-
  distribution problems this evaluation's criteria measure with unusual
  precision, and then explicitly declines to commit to any single
  mechanism for solving them, leaving that choice to each adopting
  jurisdiction. This is a genuinely different, and more diffuse, situation
  than any other targeted-mechanism system already in this corpus:
  Georgism commits to one pairing (land value tax plus dividend); Mutual
  Credit/LETS commits to one credit design. Doughnut Economics, by
  contrast, commits to none of the specific mechanisms — land value
  capture, cooperative ownership, commons governance, complementary
  currency — that its own bibliography discusses approvingly.
- **C4.4 (Power Distribution)** is a clean structural failure corroborated
  by convergent, independent criticism from ideologically distinct sources
  (a widely-read *Jacobin* critique and a separate *Socialist Review*
  assessment both make substantially the same point from the political
  left; this evaluation did not locate an equivalent critique from the
  political right making the identical claim, though several right-of-
  center reviews raise the closely related point that the framework does
  not address whether real political actors have the incentives to behave
  as its normative vision requires).
- **C1.2a, C1.2b, and C1.5 all fail together**, the identical "wealth-
  criteria cluster" pattern this project has now documented in every
  Step 1b system scored to date (Georgism, Mutual Credit/LETS, and now
  Doughnut Economics) as well as in several of the retrofitted legacy
  systems — but Doughnut Economics is the first system in this cluster
  to fail *all three* without a single bright spot (Georgism had C1.2b=0.5;
  Mutual Credit/LETS had C1.2b=1.0, its single strongest score). Both
  C1.2a and C1.2b are flagged above as the evaluation's most genuinely
  contestable calls.
- **C1.4 (Automation Resilience) and C4.5 (Exploitation Elimination)**
  round out the failure list; in both cases this evaluation found the
  underlying concern named accurately and discussed in the source
  material, but met with no operational response anywhere in the
  framework or its 50+ real-world implementations.

**A note on the adequacy-tier result, for the NEEC framework itself.**
Doughnut Economics lands in the **Structurally Inadequate** tier (8
failures) despite being, by a wide margin, the most institutionally
prominent, most currently scientifically-anchored, and most broadly
real-world-adopted system this project has evaluated under the v2
structure to date — more jurisdictions have adopted some form of Doughnut
Economics (50+, plus one national government) than have adopted Georgism-
style land value taxation at anything close to single-tax intensity, or
mutual-credit systems at any comparable breadth, and its global monitoring
model is now peer-reviewed in a way none of this corpus's other Step 1b
systems can claim. This is, in one sense, exactly the kind of result NEEC's
own dominance-and-failure-count methodology (Section 10.3) is designed to
produce without being swayed by an idea's prominence or reputation: real-
world reach and scientific anchoring on ecological criteria say nothing,
by construction, about whether a system provides its own material-security
or power-distribution mechanism, and the failure-count classification is
sensitive to exactly the gap this evaluation identifies. In another sense,
this is a genuinely new and sharper illustration than this project has
produced before of a pattern only implicit in earlier entries: Georgism and
Mutual Credit/LETS are *narrow, targeted mechanisms* that under-deliver on
breadth; Doughnut Economics is the opposite shape — a *comprehensive
diagnostic vision* that under-delivers on mechanism. Both failure modes
land a system in this project's lower tiers, but for structurally different
reasons, and a future Appendix I proposal on how NEEC should treat
"goal-and-measurement-only" frameworks relative to "single-mechanism"
frameworks would have a clean, real comparison to reason from here. Unlike
MMT + Job Guarantee's single tier-crossing call, no single contestable
score in this evaluation would move Doughnut Economics out of Structurally
Inadequate — even resolving both C1.2a and C1.2b to 0.5 (this evaluation's
two most contestable calls) would leave 6 failures, still within this tier
— so this classification is comparatively robust to disagreement on any one
criterion.

**Comparison to other systems in the corpus.** On the canonical corpus,
Doughnut Economics is strictly dominated by one system, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, and
dominates none. One further comparison is worth making explicitly, because
it resolves cleanly and is informative: **Degrowth Economics does not
formally dominate Doughnut Economics**, despite scoring far higher in total
(19.0/26 versus 11.5/26) and despite the two systems sharing substantial
philosophical common ground (both post-growth-oriented, both grounded in
ecological economics, both citing overlapping literature). Doughnut
Economics escapes Degrowth's dominance via three criteria — C2.5 (Exit
Rights, where Degrowth's own comprehensive-participation requirement scores
0.0 against Doughnut Economics' clean 1.0), C5.3 (Partial and Parallel
Deployability, 1.0 against Degrowth's 0.5), and C5.4 (Political Coalition
Potential, 0.5 against Degrowth's 0.0) — every one of them an
implementation-viability-side criterion where Doughnut Economics' voluntary,
piecemeal, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction adoption pattern is a genuine
structural advantage over Degrowth's more totalizing ambition, even though
Degrowth is unambiguously the stronger system on every criterion that
actually measures material security, autonomy, or power distribution. This
is a clean, real illustration of the same "comprehensive vision versus
targeted deployability" tension the adequacy-tier note above describes,
visible here as a genuine (if narrow) formal non-domination rather than only
as a qualitative resemblance. Qualitatively, Doughnut Economics' overall
profile — strong, current ecological/adaptability credentials paired with
almost no material-security mechanism — most resembles no other single
system in the corpus as closely as it resembles the general *shape* of
Georgism's and Mutual Credit/LETS's own findings (a system whose real
strength is narrow and specific, surrounded by uniform partial-to-zero
scores elsewhere), while being the only one of the three to fail the
wealth-criteria cluster in its entirety.

---

## Reviewer disclosure (per NEEC_CONTRIBUTING.md §2 / Appendix H.6)

This is a first-pass scoring by a single AI reasoner (Claude), based on web
research conducted in this session (more than a dozen searches) rather than
a systematic literature review, and has not yet been independently
cross-checked by a second scorer per H.9 Step 6. Sources drawn on include:
the peer-reviewed literature this evaluation leans on most heavily (Fanning
& Raworth's October 2025 *Nature* paper and its accompanying DEAL materials;
Richardson et al.'s 2023 *Science Advances* planetary-boundaries update;
Shao's 2025 systematic review and companion bibliometric analysis of the
Doughnut Economics literature, 2012–2024; a 2025 *Ecological Economics*
case study of the Barcelona City Portrait; a 2025 *Journal of City Climate
Policy and Economy* survey of 50 local governments' engagement with the
model); DEAL's own current (2025–2026) public-facing materials (the "Cities
& Regions" and "Doughnut Economics for Policymakers" pages, the "Creating
City Portraits" methodological guide); city- and case-specific secondary
sources (coverage of Amsterdam, Nanaimo, Glasgow, and Brussels's own
implementations); and a deliberately broad spread of critical commentary
spanning very different starting points (Noah Smith's economics-focused
review, syndicated by Asia Times; a libertarian-leaning critique from the
Foundation for Economic Education; a left-wing structural critique from
*Jacobin*; a further-left critique from *Socialist Worker*; and a 2025
doctoral thesis's case study of Cornwall Council). This spread was a
deliberate attempt at genuine balance — actively seeking out both the
framework's strongest, most current evidence (the 2025 *Nature*
publication, the 50+-jurisdiction adoption record) and its most serious
independent criticism (the power-distribution gap identified from multiple
ideological directions) — rather than a one-sided case, but it is not a
substitute for a formal literature review, and this evaluator has not read
Raworth's book directly in full; all book-content claims are drawn from
secondary description, chapter summaries, and direct critical engagement
with specific passages (e.g., the Chapter 6 automation claim), not from a
primary read-through, and should be weighted accordingly by any auditor with
direct access to the source text. The clearest candidates for independent
disagreement are flagged inline: **C1.2a and C1.2b** (explicitly marked
contestable above — a scorer weighing DE's citation of compatible
redistributive literature more heavily than this evaluation does would
plausibly land at 0.5 for one or both, though as noted under Summary Scores
this would not change the adequacy-tier outcome), **C1.4** (this
evaluation's read that naming a concern without an operational response is
a cleaner failure than the corpus's other 0.5-scoring "insufficient buffer"
cases — a real distinction, but one a future scorer might weigh
differently), and the overall **scope decision** described in the Overview
(scoring Doughnut Economics as the framework and its actual implementation
record, not as a hypothetical maximally-ambitious hybrid) — a scorer
evaluating a specific, named Doughnut-plus-mechanism combination that some
particular jurisdiction has actually adopted should not import this
evaluation's Domain 1 or C4.4/C4.5 scores wholesale, since a jurisdiction
that paired Doughnut Economics planning with, say, a genuine land value tax
or cooperative-ownership mandate would score differently on exactly the
criteria this evaluation found weakest.

---

## Verification

The 26-criterion score vector above was checked programmatically in Session
14, by an ad hoc script named `verify_doughnut.py`, for two things before
this document was finalized: (1) that all five domain sums and the overall
total are the literal arithmetic sum of the 26 discrete criterion scores,
per Appendix H.4's continuous-pre-rounding convention, and (2) that the
resulting failure count and adequacy tier match what is stated in Summary
Scores. Both passed on first run:

```
D1 (Material Security):        1.0/6
D2 (Human Autonomy):           2.0/5
D3 (System Resilience):        3.0/5
D4 (Ethical Integrity):        2.5/5
D5 (Implementation Viability): 3.0/5
Total: 11.5/26 (44%)
Failures: 8 -- ['C1.2a', 'C1.2b', 'C1.4', 'C1.5', 'C2.1', 'C2.2', 'C4.4', 'C4.5']
Tier: Structurally Inadequate

Cross-check: sum of five domain totals equals total: True
```

In Session 16 this row was added to
`neec_weighting_robustness_analysis_v2.py`'s own `SCORES`/`PUBLISHED`
dictionaries, where `verify_transcription()` re-verifies it, as it does
Georgism's and Mutual Credit/LETS's rows. The Session 14 script was not
kept. The `verify_doughnut.py` now among the project files is a
reconstruction, written in Session 30 from this section: it reads the vector
from this document's criterion headings, repeats both checks, and reproduces
the transcript above byte for byte. It also checks the vector against the
canonical corpus, `neec_scores.csv` and this document's summary block, which
`neec_entry.py` validates in full. The harness (`run_all_checks.py`) runs
both.

---

## Summary block

The machine-readable summary of this entry (protocol section 9; schema
`neec-summary-block/1.0`, `summary_block_schema.json`). It is generated from
the canonical corpus and the Session 28 staging (`summary_blocks_s28.json`),
not typed, and validated by `neec_entry.py`.

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Doughnut Economics",
  "code": "DE",
  "display_name": "Doughnut Economics",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_DoughnutEconomics_scoring_scratch.md"], "scored": "Session 14, natively on the v2 structure", "structure": "native-v2"},
  "scope": {"class": "comprehensive_system", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Comprehensive system: Market Socialism, Libertarian Minarchism, Degrowth Economics, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Participatory Economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Integral, Doughnut Economics."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 0.5, "C1.2a": 0.0, "C1.2b": 0.0, "C1.3": 0.5, "C1.4": 0.0, "C1.5": 0.0,
    "C2.1": 0.0, "C2.2": 0.0, "C2.3": 0.5, "C2.4": 0.5, "C2.5": 1.0,
    "C3.1": 0.5, "C3.2": 0.5, "C3.3": 0.5, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 0.5,
    "C4.1": 1.0, "C4.2": 1.0, "C4.3": 0.5, "C4.4": 0.0, "C4.5": 0.0,
    "C5.1": 0.5, "C5.2": 0.5, "C5.3": 1.0, "C5.4": 0.5, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 1.0, "D2": 2.0, "D3": 3.0, "D4": 2.5, "D5": 3.0, "total": 11.5, "failures": 8, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"},
  "flags": [
    {"criterion": "C1.2a", "scored": 0.0, "alternatives": [0.5], "basis": "stated", "reading": "endorsing named accumulation vehicles read as commitment", "tracks": null, "source": {"file": "NEEC_DoughnutEconomics_scoring_scratch.md", "locator": "C1.2a", "phrase": "warrant the 0.5 band"}},
    {"criterion": "C1.2b", "scored": 0.0, "alternatives": [0.5], "basis": "stated", "reading": "the 'harness the commons' language weighted more heavily", "tracks": null, "source": {"file": "NEEC_DoughnutEconomics_scoring_scratch.md", "locator": "C1.2b", "phrase": "could land at 0.5 instead"}}
  ],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 11.5, "failures": 8, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}},
    {"id": "up", "label": "every flagged call resolved upward", "basis": "extremes", "resolve": {"C1.2a": 0.5, "C1.2b": 0.5}, "result": {"total": 12.5, "failures": 6, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}},
    {"id": "down", "label": "every flagged call resolved downward", "basis": "extremes", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 11.5, "failures": 8, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->