— Findings at a Glance

What the work actually shows

A one-page summary of our four methodology papers, written for funders and partners who need the conclusions before the detail. Each entry states what the framework measures, what we have found so far, and — just as importantly — what we do not yet claim. The full papers, with formulas, validation, and references, are one click away.

Paper One · 27 February 2026 · v1.0

The ACES Circularity Index™

What it measures
Community-scale circular economy outcomes across five dimensions: material diverted from landfill and burning, economic value recovered, livelihoods generated, money kept circulating locally, and behaviour change that lasts. Combined into a single 0–100 score, always reported with its five parts visible.
Why it matters
Existing circularity metrics are built for corporate supply chains. They count tonnes and ignore the wage earned by the household that diverted them. The ACI is, to our knowledge, the first composite circularity index designed for the place-based, informal-economy context where most regeneration actually happens.
What we found
In Adikpo, pre-programme material diversion was estimated at under 5%, with open burning the dominant disposal route — establishing a clear baseline against which change can be measured.
What we don't claim
We have not yet published an ACI score for Adikpo. The programme is in its inaugural phase; we will not report a composite figure until at least four months of stable data exist across all five dimensions. A premature number would mislead.
Read the full paper How to cite
Paper Two · 24 March 2026 · v1.0

The Regenerative Dignity Index™

What it measures
Place-based dignity across five pillars: pride uplift, belonging and identity, emotional safety, daily experience, and community cohesion. Measured by a 25-item community survey, scored 0–100, with two derived metrics — the Community Pride Quotient™ (how concentrated pride is) and the Dignity Delta™ (how much it changed).
Why it matters
Nearly every development programme claims dignity as an outcome; almost none measure it. The sector defaults to income and material proxies because dignity is hard to measure. The RDI is a worked instrument a programme manager can administer, score, and report — closing the gap between what we say matters and what we count.
What we found
The instrument was developed and field-tested in Adikpo, drawing on established scholarship in dignity, place attachment, and collective efficacy. The framework is ready for baseline measurement; the first Dignity Delta will follow a paired pre/post measurement cycle.
What we don't claim
RDI scores measure self-reported dignity — a qualifier we never drop. We do not yet advise cross-community comparison across very different linguistic or cultural contexts, and the CPQ threshold is not yet validated at scale.
Read the full paper How to cite
Paper Three · 21 April 2026 · v1.0

The Zone Replication Blueprint™ & Zone Readiness Index™

What it measures
Whether a prospective new site is ready for an intensive place-based programme — scored across six dimensions: community readiness, infrastructure, local governance, social capital, risk profile, and economic substrate. Combined into a weighted readiness score with go / wait / no-go decision bands.
Why it matters
Choosing the wrong site is a multi-year, multi-million mistake that often only becomes visible after the capital is committed. The framework forces a disciplined, evidence-based readiness judgement before commitment — with assessment deliberately separated from the decision to prevent rubber-stamping.
What we found
Scored retrospectively against the Adikpo deployment, the framework produced a composite of 72 and correctly flagged Infrastructure (58) as the weakest dimension — precisely the area where real operational difficulties later emerged. Encouragingly, it proved conservative rather than over-confident on community uptake.
What we don't claim
The thresholds are defensibly reasoned, not yet empirically validated — calibrated against one deployment. Ex-ante prediction in development is genuinely hard; we expect the framework to be wrong in particular cases. Its defence is that a disciplined framework beats none.
Read the full paper How to cite
Paper Four · 19 May 2026 · v1.0

Building an Auditable Operational Platform for Distressed Contexts

What it covers
The design principles and technical architecture behind the ACES™ dashboard: offline-first (works without connectivity), single-file deployment (no build chain), auditable by default (append-only log), beneficiary-visible (participants see their own record), and funder-ready (board and audit packs generated from operating data).
Why it matters
Most NGO software is built for stable infrastructure and digitally fluent users, then deployed where neither holds — and fails expensively. This paper documents an architecture built for intermittent connectivity, low-end devices, and high staff turnover, with a resilience layer that survives the loss of any single data location.
What's distinctive
A functional-currency ledger (Naira) with presentation-layer conversion and source-attributed rates, so funders see pounds or dollars without contaminating the books. A participant scorecard that treats the beneficiary as a party to their data, not only its subject. Four assurance registers embedded in the daily tool rather than maintained separately.
Open questions
We have not decided whether to open-source the platform, how to resolve cross-jurisdiction data governance (Nigeria DPA 2023 / UK DPA 2018), or whether the sector is better served by a product or a pattern. We put these to peer foundations.
Read the full paper How to cite

Every framework above is published at version 1.0 and is open for review. We publish our methodology — including its limitations — because a foundation that claims dignity, regeneration, and replication as outcomes should be willing to show how it measures them, and to be corrected where it is wrong. Comments, critique, and proposed revisions are genuinely welcome via the contact page. A downloadable PDF of each paper is available at the foot of that paper.