Accountability Casebook

A case-file architecture connecting claim, appropriation, contract, vendor, capacity, output, outcome, audit, contradiction, correction, and unresolved question.

Public-interest problem

Budgets, contracts, performance claims, audits, and corrections are usually published in separate systems, preventing the public from testing whether spending produced the represented capacity or outcome.

Primary users

Investigative reporters, oversight bodies, civic organizations, funders, and residents examining public programs.

Current tools & deliverables

What the project produces

Case chronology
Claim-to-record matrix
Appropriation and contract ledger
Vendor and responsible-official map
Contradiction and unknowns register

Operating workflow

01Define the public claim and accountable institution.
02Locate legal authority and appropriations.
03Connect procurements, contracts, amendments, invoices, and vendors.
04Compare purchased capacity and reported outputs with outcomes.
05Add audits, disputes, corrections, contrary evidence, and unresolved questions.

Case-file schema

A claim is tested across the full accountability chain.

Claim

Appropriation

Contract

Vendor

Capacity

Output

Outcome

Audit

Contradiction

Unresolved question

Bay Evidence documents Follow the money

Data, privacy & limitations

Builders and working templates operate in the browser. CTI does not receive the information entered. Published work follows source provenance, PII minimization, lawful-access, right-of-reply, correction, and anti-doxxing standards.

The architecture supports investigation; it does not establish wrongdoing. Absence from a public system is not proof that a record or event does not exist.

Roadmap

Next development stage

Pilot the schema in Bay Evidence reporting, publish a reusable casebook specification, and add exportable relationship tables.

Use the project

Move from the project file to the working method.

Open related guide