Data documented well enough to replicate.

Sampling frames are proprietary, eligibility is self-declared, exclusions arrive as an unexplained N, and the weighting procedure is described in prose rather than versioned. A reviewer asking how a specific estimate was produced is asking a question the vendor's memo cannot answer.

That gap is not a rigor problem inside your team — it is a records problem upstream of it. It shows up in peer review, in FOIA responses, and in the replication attempt that cannot reconstruct your procedure.

PolitiMind runs pre-specification, design review, feasibility, verified admission, fielding, integrity review, weighting, and computation in one system that records each step. The data-and-methods section describes what actually happened because it is assembled from the same record a reviewer can check.

Documentation is only useful if it is honest about its own reach. Each layer below states what it establishes and what it explicitly does not, so nothing on this page can be read as a claim that verified collection settles an inferential question.

The most expensive discovery in survey research is that the subgroup your analysis depends on could not be filled. Feasibility narrowing is shown before fielding, in structure rather than in figures — every real number is computed per study, against your own specification.

Step through a study the way a reviewer, a records officer, and then a replication team would. Each phase names what documentation is created, who outside your institution can check it, and what that check does not settle. Where transparency is still a commitment rather than a capability, it says so.

This compares approaches, not vendors. No research organization is named or characterised, and rows that depend on how a specific provider works carry that caveat. If a row matters to your review committee, ask your current data provider the same question.

Verification, weighting, integrity review, and disclosure are identical for every institution and every subject measured, in every party. Approval authority does not move: IRB review, human-subjects determinations, and data-use agreements remain your institution's, and we supply documentation to support them rather than a substitute for them.

PolitiMind is not a probability-sampled national frame, and it does not forecast elections. Advanced method coverage and repeat-wave panels are beta, so confirm your specific design before it becomes a grant deliverable. Verified admission and recorded computation remove whole classes of integrity failure and leave sampling error, coverage gaps, nonresponse bias, and question-wording effects exactly where they were. Identity-linked microdata and participant contact details never leave the platform, so identity-based linkage designs are not supported, and no independent accreditation of our methods exists today.

The useful test is not a capability deck. Take a question already in your research plan, field it here, and judge the delivery on one thing: could a reviewer recompute the reported estimate from the documentation alone, without asking you for anything.