How to Use the Framework
This page explains how to apply the Rotation Research Framework for Evaluating Eligibility, Tenure, and Rotation Design to real-world texts, proposals, and designs. The purpose is to enable disciplined, repeatable evaluation using Architectural Classification, followed by application of the Structural Analysis and Normative Analysis modules, and concluding with synthesized analytical judgment.
The Framework is designed to be applied to texts (e.g., constitutional amendments, statutes, ballot measures, bylaws, proposals, formal descriptions of designs, or clearly framed questions about how a system operates).
Applicable Materials
The Framework may be applied to any material that describes how eligibility, limits, aggregation, or transitions are structured, including:
Constitutional or charter amendments (including proposals)
Statutes, ordinances, or ballot measures (enacted or proposed)
Party rules, bylaws, or organizational eligibility rules governing officeholding or candidacy
Journalistic descriptions of a design
A personally written description of a proposed system
The only requirement is that the material contain enough detail to evaluate the structural features of the design.
Concise Summary
Paste the text to be analyzed → paste the test prompt → submit the prompt → synthesize the results into an integrated judgment.
The final synthesis step is essential. Running prompts without synthesis does not complete application of the Framework.
Standard Use
This is the standard method for applying the Framework.
Step 1 — Complete Architectural Classification
Before applying any evaluative test, determine what the system structurally is using the Architectural Classification page. Misclassification produces faulty evaluation.
→ Architectural Classification
Classification includes identifying:
Office structure (single-office vs multi-seat body)
Unit of measure
Aggregation rules
Equal application over time
Transition type (finite transition vs enduring exempt class)
Administrability
Step 2 — Choose a test
Select the type of evaluation to be applied:
Structural Validity (Module I) determines whether a design functions coherently as an eligibility architecture.
Normative Adequacy (Module II) evaluates whether a structurally coherent design advances the theory of republican rotation used in this project. This presupposes prior assessment of Structural Validity.
The Comparative Tests evaluates two designs side-by-side while preserving independent classification of each.
A complete evaluation requires both Structural Analysis and Normative Analysis.
Step 3 — Navigate to the test section
Navigate to the page for:
The Comparative Test section (available on either module page)
Each page contains a clearly labeled, copyable test prompt.
Step 4 — Copy the material you want to evaluate
Select and copy the text to be evaluated (e.g., statute, proposal, amendment, article, or your own description).
Step 5 — Open an AI reasoning system and paste the material
Open a separate AI system (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or a comparable tool) and paste the selected material into its prompt field.
Step 6 — Paste the test prompt
Copy the test prompt from the relevant Framework page and paste it immediately after the material. Then submit the prompt.
Step 7 — Synthesis (Required)
Synthesis integrates the results of both analyses into a coherent analytical judgment. This step is required.
Synthesis involves:
Identifying which structural features best explain the system’s behavior
Distinguishing design flaws from administrative behavior
Determining whether normative weaknesses arise from architecture or implementation
Producing a unified explanation of the system as a whole
Users who stop at test outputs have not completed application of the Framework.
The Worked Examples section of the site illustrates what careful synthesis looks like.
If the Structural Validity Test Is Applied
A yes/no assessment for each structural failure mode is provided
One-sentence justifications tied to textual features are provided
A clear overall finding (e.g., Clean, Structurally Compromised, Not Structurally Valid) is provided
These results address whether the design functions coherently as an eligibility architecture. The analysis concerns structural coherence only.
If the Normative Adequacy Test is Applied
Evaluations of normative risks (e.g., entrenchment risk, civic intelligibility, elite continuity) are provided
An overall judgment of whether the design advances republican rotation under the stated doctrine is provided
These results presuppose prior assessment of structural coherence.
If a Comparative Test is Applied
The Comparative Test is designed for side-by-side demonstration and instructional use.
Each proposal is evaluated independently under the same criteria. The comparison section identifies where classifications or outcomes diverge.
This preserves analytical discipline while making contrasts explicit.
Using the Glossary (Rotation Logic)
The Framework employs specialized vocabulary for precision.
If any term in the results is unfamiliar, the Rotation Logic (Glossary) provides definitions of:
Structural terms
Failure modes
Normative concepts
Architecture terms
Scope of the Framework
The Framework evaluates structural and institutional design features rather than:
Political preference
Partisan advantage or disadvantage
Public popularity
Electoral or campaign strategy
Likelihood of adoption or enactment
Constitutionality under existing legal doctrine
Its purpose is structural clarity and disciplined evaluation of institutional design logic.
Methodological Practice
For disciplined application:
Apply the Structural Validity test
Apply the Normative Adequacy test
Review results alongside the glossary definitions
Compare outcomes across multiple cases when appropriate
Over time, this develops familiarity with how different architectures behave and why superficially similar designs often produce materially different systemic outcomes.
Explore related material
→ Framework
→ FAQs
→ Case Library
→ Rotation Logic
Last updated — February 2026