Comparative Constitutions Project

Packet identity

Packet ID

organizations:entity-comparative-constitutions-project

Packet SHA-256 identity

0bea511559c523f0ac7eed75ddb631bff11ae408e37056618d8e283a03b8b72e

Corpus SHA-256 identity

8fa944604ca189f5a9216ca59f640ad2ca20972ad512f2f4970764716782e18d

Release ID

public-alpha-2026-07-26-research-visuals-r14

Source commit

3eb036fce3d711336c8c605625895e8a2e799ab0

Frozen corpus date

2026-07-25

Primary records

1

Reference sources

1

Questions and exclusions

Required questions

1. Required question 1 (exact ID: question-1)
   Does the official source establish the entity, current program, and bounded capability described?
2. Required question 2 (exact ID: question-2)
   Are potential fit, risks, access, geography, and engagement boundaries current and proportionate?
3. Required question 3 (exact ID: question-3)
   Could any wording imply partnership, endorsement, availability, procurement, authority, or affiliation that does not exist?

Explicit exclusions

• Indexing is not endorsement, due diligence completion, outreach, procurement, or a relationship.
• No aggregate organization score or sponsor-purchased ranking is permitted.

Requested controlled scopes: ecosystem-due-diligence, information-science

Frozen-evidence decision window: 90 days from the packet freeze. Not applicable to this packet family.

Complete primary record set

Every record below has one primary packet owner. Decisions must bind to the exact record and packet fingerprints; a changed lesson body, evidence grade, citation, locator, source snapshot, requirement, policy, release, or commit expires the old packet.

1. ecosystem-organization · entity-comparative-constitutions-project

   Comparative Constitutions Project

   Record fingerprint

   327f1033fc0df5c9d12335ee36fa59f32c38a4bb41b5095206b377fd662e274d

   Minimum approvals

   1

   Required scope groups

   bounded-competence: ecosystem-due-diligence

   High-consequence domains

   None under the named two-person rule

   Review state

   pending

   Published human decisions

   0

   Inspect the complete frozen review surface

   ID

   entity-comparative-constitutions-project

   Legacy ID

   org-public-i-003

   Slug

   comparative-constitutions-project

   Name

   Comparative Constitutions Project

   URL

   https://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/↗ (opens external site in a new tab)

   Category

   Public interest, governance, culture, and capital

   Geography

   International

   Relevance

   adjacent

   Engagement

   Proposed only, subject to a future fit check and then-current access rules: use its documented datasets for a bounded comparative analysis and seek scholarly review before drawing leadership or governance conclusions. No outreach, eligibility determination, commitment, or procurement has occurred.

   Capability

   Comparative constitutional datasets, coding methods, institutional analysis, and public research tools.

   Entity Kind

   academic research and constitutional-data project

   Link Checked At

   2026-07-25

   Relationship

   indexed only; no formal relationship

   Engagement Status

   proposed; not undertaken

   Profile Summary

   The Comparative Constitutions Project produces structured cross-national data on the content and history of national constitutions and tools intended to support comparative research and constitution-making.

   Potential Fit

   Could inform evidence-based governance curriculum, institutional comparison, rights design, and failure analysis, while avoiding direct transplantation of nation-state constitutions to a closed habitat.

   Risks

   1. National constitutional text is an imperfect proxy for lived institutions, enforcement, power, or small-population governance.
   2. Dataset coding decisions, coverage, and updates can shape conclusions.
   3. Applying historical constitutions to a coercive closed habitat risks false analogy and unexamined colonial assumptions.

   Evidence Boundary

   Official-link review: the official project site was reachable and states its data-production, peace, justice, and constitution-making goals; dataset validity was not independently audited here. Public descriptions, performance, maturity, access, procurement, and current availability were not independently verified; independent review pending.

   Conflicts

   Conflicts were not assessed beyond publisher disclosure in this official-link review; financial, contracting, leadership, and institutional conflicts were not independently investigated.

   What Would Change

   Current codebooks, replication materials, peer-reviewed validation, and research on isolated or multigenerational communities would change the fit.

Frozen source snapshots

Source inclusion does not determine the disposition. Reviewers must inspect the cited locator and relation, note inaccessible material, and identify stronger or conflicting evidence.

Offline packet and worksheet

Downloads contain no reviewer contact details. Downloading does not create an account or store a review response in the GShips application. Ordinary provider request or analytics logs may record the download request. Work locally: the public site has no review account, upload endpoint, or decision-submission API.

Do not paste a completed decision, identity documents, private contact data, confidential conflict evidence, medical information, controlled material, or exploit details into a public form. Until a separately authorized private handoff exists, retain the completed worksheet locally.

Packet schema · JSON · Decision-bundle schema · JSON

Validate offline

Use Node.js 22.13.0 or later. Keep the packet, worksheet, completed decision, and all six kit files together in a local directory.

1. Download the six kit files below. Complete a copy of the JSON template offline and preserve its templateFingerprint.
2. Finalize a separate output file.

   node finalize-review-decision.mjs \
     --input DRAFT.json \
     --output COMPLETED.json

   This marks the copy complete and calculates an unkeyed canonical bundle fingerprint. A fingerprint detects changes; it is not a reviewer signature.

3. Validate the packet and completed copy.

   node check-review-decisions.mjs \
     --packet PACKET.json \
     --decision COMPLETED.json

   Add another --decision for each independent reviewer.

4. Interpret the result narrowly. A zero exit proves structural consistency only. Neither command appoints or qualifies a reviewer, establishes independence, accepts a decision, or authorizes publication.

• Bundle finalizer
• Validator command
• Decision policy module
• Fingerprint and packet-integrity module
• Review-domain policy module
• Canonical synthesis and interactive review specs