Root & Fruit — Integrity Index

No Report Generated

Run an Auto-Analyze from the Results tab to generate the full audit report.

Candidate Name

Jurisdiction (optional)

Office / Position (optional)

Subject Pathway

Community Leader Context: Fruit scores reflect documented impact through organizing, campaigns, and civic work — not legislation. Weak Fruit does not mean failure; it may mean this person operated without institutional power.

Include Legislative Scrubber (uses extra credits)

Let AI pre-fill the form from public sources, then edit anything you disagree with — or open Community Assessment to score it yourself.

Subject

—

Verdict

UNGRADED

🌱 Root (Values)

/ 25

📣 Branches

/ 12

🍎 Fruit (Outcomes)

/ 15

☀️ Visibility separate

/ 10

☠️ Toxic Penalties

−0

deducted

Verdict Breakdown

Shareable Result Card

Compare Two Subjects

Load any two saved audits side by side to compare their scores.

Save two or more audits to compare them here.

Saved Audits

Stored in your browser — 0 audit(s)

What Is Root & Fruit?

Root & Fruit is a community-built integrity framework for evaluating political candidates and policies through the lens of Black social justice. It was designed in response to a persistent gap in voter education tools: most scoring systems reward proximity to power, not actual community impact.

The framework asks a different question: By their fruits, shall you know them. Not their party, not their rhetoric — their record.

The Five Pillars

🌱

The Root — Core Values (25 pts)

Evaluates the foundational worldview: anti-carceral stance, commitment to reparations and repair, solidarity with community over party, holistic safety (housing, health, economic security), and fiscal integrity. These are binary — either the evidence supports it or it doesn't.

📣

The Branches — Advocacy (12 pts)

Grants credit for active advocacy and organizing even when institutional power wasn't available. A candidate who fought for wealth transfer, CBO funding, housing, criminal justice reform, and intergenerational assets — but couldn't get it passed — still earns these points.

🍎

The Fruit — Outcomes (15 pts)

The hardest section. Scores actual deliverables on a 0–3 scale across five areas. A score of 3 means something was fully enacted, funded, and measurable. For community leaders, fruit is assessed through documented organizing wins, policy shifts they influenced, and lasting institutional change — not just legislation.

☀️

The Light — Visibility (0–10, separate indicator)

Reflects how well-documented the subject's record is — across all evidence types: voting history, organizing records, journalism, public statements, and civic leadership. The Light is a transparency indicator and does NOT factor into the composite score. A sparse Light score is a reason to dig deeper, not a verdict in itself.

☠️

Toxic Soil — Penalties (deducted)

Three hard penalties for documented betrayal: Gatekeeper (−3, blocking other Black leaders), Plantation (−4, taking money from harmful industries), and Betrayal (−8, vetoing or killing a bill they promised to support). These are only applied with clear evidence.

Verdict Tiers

Score	Candidate Verdict	Policy Verdict
44–57	The Vanguard	Transformative Law
35–43	The Worker	Progressive Reform
26–34	The Pragmatist	Incremental Reform
16–25	The Politician	Maintenance Bill
7–15	The Bystander	Low Alignment Policy
0–6	The Misaligned	Misaligned Policy

The Two Pathways

Elected Officials are assessed on their voting record, sponsored legislation, budget decisions, and institutional deliverables. Having power and failing to deliver is treated differently from advocating without power.

Community Leaders — organizers, activists, civic leaders, and non-electoral figures — are assessed on their documented advocacy record: campaigns led, coalitions built, policies influenced, and community impact achieved. The Auto-Analyze engine is explicitly instructed to weight civic records on equal footing with legislative records.

Disclaimer

Root & Fruit is a community framework, not a definitive judgment. Auto-analysis is AI-powered and draws on publicly available information up to its knowledge cutoff. AI-generated assessments may contain errors, omissions, or reflect the limits of available public documentation. All scores should be treated as a starting point for research — not a final verdict. Users are encouraged to review cited sources, apply their own judgment, and adjust scores manually where needed.