# Obfuscratic Sabbotarchy Signature — Scoring Rubric

**Per-dimension scoring criteria for the Obfuscratic Sabbotarchy — Deception Arcane signature instrument**

*B. Greenway · ThinkWell Labs Metrology · v1.1 · May 2026*

*This rubric specifies the documented criteria for assigning scores on each of the five signature dimensions. Scores are 0–100. Each dimension is scored independently based on documented evidence; the composite Obfuscratic Sabbotarchy Index is the weighted aggregate. This document accompanies the formal methodology paper and the operational signature instrument.*

---

## Scoring philosophy

Scores represent a structured analytical judgment, anchored to documented evidence, not a precise quantitative measurement. The signature framework is interpretive at its base: an experienced analyst examining the same evidence should produce a score within ±10 points of another experienced analyst's score for the same architecture on the same dimension. Tighter convergence is desirable but not required; loose convergence indicates the framework is not measuring a real signal.

The rubric is designed so that scores at the band boundaries (30, 70, 85) carry the most analytical weight. An architecture scoring 71 versus 73 is roughly indistinguishable; an architecture scoring 68 versus 72 crosses a methodological threshold and warrants careful re-examination of the evidence.

Every score should be paired with documented evidence anchors. Unanchored scores have no analytical authority.

---

## S1 — Outcome-Distribution Asymmetry

**What is measured:** the divergence between the stated/policy-rationale beneficiary and the realized/documented beneficiary, where the realized beneficiary is identified through directional flow analysis of the operation's actual consequences.

**Evidence required for scoring:**

- Official policy documents stating the operation's intended beneficiary
- Public statements by responsible officials regarding rationale
- Quantitative outcome data: where did value, position, or jurisdictional capture actually flow?
- Magnitude estimates: dollar amounts, affected population sizes, jurisdictional reorganization

**Scoring bands:**

| Range | Pattern | Criteria |
|-------|---------|----------|
| 0–20 | Symmetric | Stated and realized beneficiary populations substantially overlap. Minor divergence within expected operational variance. No documented directional concentration toward extraction architecture, procurement pipeline, surveillance apparatus, or wealth-concentration substrate. |
| 20–50 | Mild asymmetry | Stated and realized beneficiaries differ but overlap substantially. Documented directional flow toward an alternative beneficiary exists but is moderate in magnitude. Magnitude on the scale of single-digit billions or under one million affected persons. |
| 50–80 | Significant directional concentration | Stated and realized beneficiaries substantially diverge. Documented directional flow toward a distinct architecture (extraction, procurement, surveillance) is structural and sustained. Magnitude on the scale of tens of billions or millions of affected persons. |
| 80–100 | Extreme directional concentration | Stated and realized beneficiaries are categorically distinct populations or architectures. Documented directional flow at extreme magnitude (hundreds of billions; tens of millions of affected persons; major jurisdictional reorganization). Magnitude estimate is independently verifiable through CBO scoring, Treasury Inspector General reporting, or equivalent. |

**Scoring guidance:**

The score should reflect the *combination* of qualitative categorical mismatch and quantitative magnitude. An architecture with extreme magnitude but moderate categorical distinctness might score 70–80; an architecture with extreme categorical distinctness but moderate magnitude might score 60–75; an architecture with both extreme categorical distinctness and extreme magnitude scores 85–100.

The OBBBA / Medicaid administration scores 92 because (a) the stated beneficiary (taxpayers via fiscal responsibility) and the realized-beneficiary structure (~$2.3T of provisions accruing mainly to the top income decile per CBO/JCT distributional analysis + private-equity nursing-home extraction architecture) are categorically distinct, and (b) the magnitude is extreme — PROJECTED (CBO/CBPP, 2034 horizon): 9.9–15M coverage losses, ~$911B net Medicaid reduction (CBO Jul 2025). These are forecast outcomes, scored as projected-outcome evidence, not realized counts. Both qualitative and quantitative criteria are at maximum. *(v1.2 correction: an earlier edition stated an unanchored "$1.3T upward wealth transfer" as realized; withdrawn per the evidence audit.)*

---

## S2 — Domain-Selective Competence

**What is measured:** the differential between public-facing function delivery quality and extractive function delivery quality within the same operational architecture, with the same personnel and resource pool available.

**Evidence required for scoring:**

- Identified examples of public-facing functions (taxpayer service, benefit delivery, public-records access, court-process compliance, regulatory transparency)
- Identified examples of extractive functions (data fusion, contract execution, surveillance integration, enforcement against disfavored targets, loyalty-pipeline deployment)
- Documented performance metrics for each function class (wait times, failure rates, completion rates, accuracy rates)
- Time-window: scoring should reflect concurrent performance, not cross-period comparison

**Sub-scoring axes:**

- **Public-facing competence** (0–100): rating of public-facing function delivery quality
- **Extractive competence** (0–100): rating of extractive function delivery quality

**Signature score derivation:**

The signature score is *not* the difference between the two axes — it is the diagnostic position in the public-facing × extractive space. The Sabbotarchy signature quadrant is HIGH extractive / LOW public-facing.

| Position | Score band | Pattern |
|----------|------------|---------|
| Both axes >70 | 0–20 | Genuine competence — architecture performs both function classes well |
| Both axes <30 | 0–20 | Genuine incompetence — architecture performs both function classes poorly |
| Extractive >60, public-facing 30–60 | 30–60 | Mixed pattern — selectivity present but not extreme |
| Extractive >70, public-facing <30 | 60–85 | Engineered-pattern signature — selectivity is structural |
| Extractive >85, public-facing <20 | 85–100 | Extreme-Asymmetry — precision in enforcement/procurement functions co-existing with catastrophic public-facing failure |
| Public-facing >70, extractive <40 | 0–20 | Anti-signature — service functions outperform enforcement/procurement functions; disconfirms the engineered reading for this dimension |

**Scoring guidance:**

The signature score should reflect both the magnitude of the differential and the structural integration of the pattern. An architecture that displays selectivity intermittently scores lower than an architecture that displays selectivity consistently across all observed time windows.

The IRS dismantling scores 95 (extractive 89, public-facing 8) because the differential is extreme and structural: Direct File terminated (catastrophic public-facing failure for low-income filers); EITC audit-architecture retained (extraction against the same population); Global High Wealth audit capacity down ~38% on staffing-based estimates (audit pressure on this population sharply reduced). The selectivity is consistent across all observed dimensions of the architecture.

---

## S3 — Anti-Remediation Response

**What is measured:** the slope of resistance-intensity as a function of remediation cost. Genuine incompetence shows positive slope (expensive fixes resisted more than cheap ones); engineered incompetence shows flat-high or inverted slope.

**Evidence required for scoring:**

- Identified proposed corrections (transparency requirements, documentation releases, procedural changes, workforce restoration, full architectural rebuilds)
- Cost estimates for each correction (in dollars, personnel hours, organizational disruption)
- Documented resistance intensity (denial, delay, categorical refusal, opposition campaigns, structural counter-mobilization)
- Multiple data points required: at minimum one cheap fix and one expensive fix, ideally three or more points across the cost spectrum

**Slope categories:**

- **Positive slope (genuine):** cheap fixes accepted or weakly resisted; expensive fixes strongly resisted
- **Mixed slope:** some pattern of cost-correlated resistance with exceptions
- **Flat-high slope (engineered):** uniform high resistance across cost spectrum
- **Inverted slope (extreme):** cheap fixes resisted as strongly or more strongly than expensive ones

**Scoring bands:**

| Range | Slope | Criteria |
|-------|-------|----------|
| 0–25 | Positive | At least one cheap fix accepted or weakly resisted; resistance scales with cost. Consistent with budget-conservation logic. |
| 25–50 | Mixed | Some cheap fixes accepted, others resisted; pattern is not clearly cost-correlated. May reflect normal political contestation. |
| 50–75 | Flat-high | Uniform high resistance across cost spectrum. Multiple cheap fixes documented as resisted with same intensity as expensive ones. |
| 75–100 | Inverted | Multiple cheap fixes (effectively zero-cost: transparency requirements, single procedural changes, document releases) resisted as strongly or more strongly than expensive ones. The pattern is unavailable to budget logic. |

**Scoring guidance:**

The inverted slope is the most diagnostic. When a near-zero-cost correction is categorically refused with the same intensity as a billion-dollar rebuild, the resistance is structural protection of the dysfunction, not budget conservation.

The DOGE federal workforce reduction architecture scores 86 because the Inspector General reinstatement (effectively zero direct cost; the statutory requirement exists, the IGs are available) has been refused with intensity comparable to full Schedule F rescission. *(v1.2 correction: a September 2025 federal ruling found the firings unlawful but declined to order reinstatement — the President may re-fire after the mandated notice — so the resistance is partly judicial-procedural; the earlier "unbounded cost-resistance ratio" claim overreached the record and is withdrawn. The example is supportive, not decisive.)*

---

## S4 — Recruitment Selection

**What is measured:** the three-axis pattern of technical-competence retention, loyalty-signal advancement, and dissent-tolerance ratio.

**Evidence required for scoring:**

- Documented departure rates of experienced technical personnel
- Documented advancement of loyalty-pipeline candidates (Project 2025 alumni, ideological-screening graduates, political-network appointments)
- Documented treatment of internal dissent (whistleblower retaliation, mid-career reassignment for disagreement, suppression of internal disagreement)
- Time-window: ideally 12+ months of observed personnel decisions

**Sub-scoring axes:**

- **Technical retention rate** (0–100): the analyst's ordinal placement of how far experienced technical personnel are retained or advanced on technical competence
- **Loyalty advancement rate** (0–100): ordinal placement of how far advancement decisions are explained by loyalty-signaling rather than technical competence
- **Dissent tolerance** (0–100): ordinal placement of how far internal dissent survives without retaliation

*(v1.2 clarification: these sub-axes are **analyst judgment scales, not measured percentages** — no census of advancement decisions or dissent episodes exists. Treat sub-axis values as ordinal placements on which experienced analysts may differ by ±10 or more; the band, not the integer, is the unit of claim.)*

**Signature score derivation:**

The signature score reflects the integrated three-axis pattern.

| Pattern | Score band | Criteria |
|---------|------------|----------|
| Technical retention >70, loyalty advancement <40, dissent tolerance >60 | 0–25 | Genuine functional architecture |
| Mixed pattern | 25–60 | Some signature elements present; not concentrated |
| Technical retention <40, loyalty advancement >70, dissent tolerance <30 | 60–85 | High-Asymmetry signature |
| Technical retention <20, loyalty advancement >85, dissent tolerance <15 | 85–100 | Extreme-Asymmetry — protection-status-selective reduction is structural |

**Scoring guidance:**

The three axes should be examined for *concurrent* concentration. Low retention with high loyalty advancement is diagnostic; low retention with moderate loyalty advancement and moderate dissent tolerance may reflect normal political turnover.

The DOGE architecture scores 84 because Schedule F architecture explicitly converts career civil-service positions to political appointments (low technical retention by design); ~20K Project 2025 loyalist pipeline activated for replacement positions (extreme loyalty advancement); whistleblower-protection enforcement selective or suspended (near-zero dissent tolerance). All three axes are concurrent and structural.

---

## S5 — Information-Architecture Asymmetry

**What is measured:** the ratio between internal information coherence (within the regime, coalition, or operating architecture) and external information coherence (the public information ecosystem the regime produces).

**Evidence required for scoring:**

- **Internal coherence evidence:** leaked documents showing integrated implementation architecture (Project 2025 document is exemplary); coordination meetings documented through investigative journalism or court records; aligned talking-point pipelines across coalition surrogates; consistent strategic-narrative architecture across coalition entities
- **External coherence evidence:** documented mutually-contradictory framings from coordinated sources; simultaneous-denial-and-implementation patterns; manufactured ambiguity around specific operations; sustained surrogate-bifurcation pattern
- Time-window: scoring should reflect concurrent internal and external coherence, not historical comparison

**Sub-scoring axes:**

- **Internal coherence** (0–100): rating of regime-internal information coherence based on documented coordination evidence
- **External coherence** (0–100): rating of public-facing narrative coherence based on documented contradiction or consistency

**Signature score derivation:**

The asymmetry magnitude is the gap (internal − external). Larger gaps produce higher signature scores.

| Gap (internal − external) | Score band | Pattern |
|---------------------------|------------|---------|
| <20 | 0–25 | Symmetric coherence — both environments coherent, or both incoherent |
| 20–40 | 25–55 | Mild asymmetry — some divergence between internal coordination and external presentation |
| 40–60 | 55–80 | Significant asymmetry — internal coordination clearly exceeds external coherence; manufactured ambiguity pattern emerging |
| 60–80 | 80–95 | Extreme asymmetry — internal coordination at near-maximum; external coherence at near-minimum; multi-rationale incoherence systematic |
| >80 | 95–100 | Pathological asymmetry — internal coordination is fully integrated; external incoherence is fully manufactured |

**Scoring guidance:**

This is the most analytically demanding dimension to score because it requires evidence about *internal* regime coherence that is often unavailable to the public. The Project 2025 document, leaked Signal channels, court-record-documented coordination meetings, and investigative-journalism documented coordination architecture are the primary evidence sources.

The DOGE federal workforce reduction architecture scores 93 because the Project 2025 document provides ~900 pages of internally-coherent integrated implementation architecture; the external information environment displays systematic surrogate-bifurcation ("we don't know what Project 2025 is" simultaneous with implementing it; four-rationale incoherence around any specific operation). Internal coherence 94, external coherence 14, gap 80, signature score 93.

This dimension is weighted highest (0.30) in the composite index because the asymmetric internal-external coherence signature has the fewest alternative explanations available. Resource constraint cannot explain it. Normal political polarization cannot explain it. Genuine confusion cannot explain it. Only deliberate architecture of internal coordination flanked by external information chaos produces this signature.

---

## Composite index computation

After all five dimensions are scored, the composite Obfuscratic Sabbotarchy Index is computed as the weighted average:

> Index = 0.25 × S1 + 0.20 × S2 + 0.15 × S3 + 0.10 × S4 + 0.30 × S5

Round to the nearest integer.

| Band | Range | Interpretation |
|------|-------|----------------|
| Genuine pattern | 0–30 | Consistent with genuine competence or genuine incompetence |
| Mixed signature | 30–70 | Multiple signatures present; further analysis required |
| High-Asymmetry | 70–85 | Satisfies the engineered-incompetence signature pattern |
| Extreme-Asymmetry | 85–100 | Signature concentration across all five dimensions |

---

## Worked example: the IRS dismantling architecture

The IRS dismantling architecture demonstrates the rubric in operation.

**S1 — Outcome-Distribution Asymmetry: 94**

Stated beneficiary: taxpayers via "agency efficiency" and "reduced harassment." Realized beneficiary: high-net-worth tax non-compliance (audit-capacity reduction); offshore architecture; pass-through-entity architecture; commercial tax-preparation industry (Direct File termination). Magnitude: ~$400B+ projected revenue loss; audit rate for >$10M earners reduced ~60%; EITC audit rate for low-income filers retained. Categorical distinctness extreme; magnitude extreme. Score: 94.

**S2 — Domain-Selective Competence: 95**

Public-facing competence: 8. Direct File terminated; taxpayer-service phone wait-times multiplied; in-person assistance compressed. Extractive competence: 89. EITC audit rate retained; small-dollar reporting violations sustained; cross-agency revenue-matching data architecture intact. Differential extreme; selectivity structural. Score: 95.

**S3 — Anti-Remediation Response: 89**

Cheap fixes resisted: Direct File restoration (effectively zero-cost) categorically refused; modest workforce restoration for taxpayer-service sustained refusal. Expensive fixes resisted: IRA enforcement funding restoration categorical refusal; audit-capacity rebuilding for high-net-worth categorical refusal. Slope flat-high — uniformly maximum resistance. Score: 89.

**S4 — Recruitment Selection: 76**

Technical retention: 22. Probationary termination notices Feb 20 2025 (7,315) were reinstated by court order Mar 17 2025; durable reductions came via deferred resignation and attrition. TIGTA found the terminations were made without regard to performance (documented); the stronger reading that they "targeted the competent" is an inference beyond the record and is not asserted. Loyalty advancement: 82. Commissioner architecture replaced with political-pipeline appointment. Dissent tolerance: 12. Score: 76.

**S5 — Information-Architecture Asymmetry: 92**

Internal coherence: 92. Project 2025 IRS-restructuring blueprint internally coherent; sustained policy-brief pipeline from Heritage, Tax Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform. External coherence: 16. Sustained simultaneous "reducing harassment" + retained EITC audits; "modernizing" + terminating modernization tools; "fiscal responsibility" + $400B+ revenue loss. Gap 76. Score: 92.

**Composite Obfuscratic Sabbotarchy Index:**

> 0.25(94) + 0.20(95) + 0.15(89) + 0.10(76) + 0.30(92)
> = 23.5 + 19.0 + 13.35 + 7.6 + 27.6
> = 91.05 → 91

Note (corrected v1.2): the v0.1 instrument displayed 89 for this architecture because its per-dimension inputs predated the v1.2 evidence-anchor revisions — not, as an earlier edition of this note claimed, because of "different intermediate rounding" (identical inputs and weights cannot round two points apart). The live instrument's current inputs are the ones shown above and compute 91, matching this worked example. The band remains the analytically authoritative unit, not the integer score.

---

## Cross-architecture scoring discipline

When scoring multiple architectures, consistency requires:

1. **Same time-window** — scoring should reflect a consistent observation period across architectures
2. **Same evidence-tier discipline** — D-tier (documented), I-tier (inferable), S-tier (speculative) standards should be applied uniformly
3. **Same magnitude reference** — what counts as "extreme magnitude" should be calibrated against the population of architectures being scored, not against unbounded scales
4. **Independent scoring per dimension** — do not let an architecture's score on one dimension contaminate scoring on another
5. **Evidence anchoring on every score** — unanchored scores have no authority

When the same analyst scores multiple architectures over an extended time, scoring drift is a real risk. Re-scoring previously-scored architectures periodically with fresh evidence review is good methodological hygiene.

---

## Limitations and methodological humility

This rubric is interpretive at its base. Scoring requires judgment. Cross-analyst convergence is desirable but not guaranteed. The framework's validity depends on:

- The signature pattern being a real empirical phenomenon (the framework would be invalidated if engineered and genuine incompetence are structurally indistinguishable on these five dimensions, which the author rejects as an empirical possibility but which cannot be ruled out in principle)
- The five dimensions being the right five (alternative or additional dimensions may improve diagnostic accuracy)
- The weightings being approximately correct (the weights are author-assigned; sensitivity analysis on weighting is a valuable extension)
- The evidence-anchored audit trail being preserved and replicable

The rubric is a v1.0 scaffold. Refinement, contestation, and revision are expected and welcomed.

---

*Document version: 1.2 · July 10, 2026 · companion to Obfuscratic Sabbotarchy — Deception Arcane (live instrument v0.8 is canonical for current scores) and Obfuscratic Sabbotarchy methodology paper v1.3*

**Changelog v1.1 → v1.2.** Evidence-anchor corrections propagated from the methodology paper's audit increment ($2.3T CBO/JCT sourced figure replacing the unanchored $1.3T; coverage losses restated as projected 9.9–15M; ~$911B CBO Medicaid figure; IG "unbounded ratio" withdrawn per the Sept 2025 judicial posture; IRS 7,315-reinstated-then-attrition account with the "targeted the competent" inference withdrawn per TIGTA). The false "intermediate rounding" reconciliation of the IRS worked example corrected. S2 derivation table gains the anti-signature quadrant. S4 sub-axes reclassified as analyst judgment scales. Bands renamed to measured-property names (High-Asymmetry / Extreme-Asymmetry).