Methodology
How we work
Every study and tool on actfap involves choices a competent reader could disagree with, which data to include, which assumption to model, where a limit changes the answer.
Those choices usually live buried inside the piece that made them. This page is a growing, indexed record of the ones worth explaining on their own, so a journalist, a researcher or an AI assistant deciding whether to cite a number here can check exactly how it was reached.
Written and reviewed by Alexander Korsager · last reviewed September 24, 2026 · corrections
This is not a page for a player.
It exists for the small number of readers whose job is deciding whether our work can be trusted, and it only grows when a choice is genuinely worth writing up on its own, never to pad out a list.
The record
Entries
0
Nothing published yet.
This page exists to hold the analytical choices worth explaining on their own; an entry is added only when one earns a place here, not on a schedule.
The bar
What counts as an entry here
An entry earns its place by naming a specific analytical choice and arguing it honestly.
A source picked over an alternative
Which data was used, and what was passed over for it.An exclusion
What was left out of a sample or a model.A modeling assumption
What the calculation takes as given.A limit that changes the answer
Where a figure stops holding.
“We used the published formula correctly” is not an entry; that belongs in a tool’s own methodology section. If you think a choice behind a number here deserves one and doesn’t have it, or think an existing entry gets its own choice wrong, the corrections policy is how to say so.