What is the Accountability score?
Accountability (ACC) is one of the 8 core dimensions in the Compassion Benchmark framework — the independent 0–100 scoring system applied to governments, companies, AI labs, robotics labs, and cities. Accountability measures whether an institution acknowledges harm honestly, accepts corrections, maintains honesty under pressure, and provides calibrated transparency about its own nature and limitations.
Accountabilityis scored using 5 anchored subdimensions, each rated 0–5 against documented evidence. Those subdimension scores combine into the entity's ACC dimension score, which contributes equally alongside the other 7 dimensions to the entity's overall composite score and performance band.
The 5 Accountability subdimensions
Each subdimension is a specific assessment question, scored 0–5 against a behavioral anchor ladder from documented evidence.
AB1
Harm Acknowledgment
When this entity causes harm, does it acknowledge without deflection?
0–5 anchor scale for AB1
- Harm denied or attributed to the affected person
- Acknowledged only after external establishment
- ≥1 case acknowledged before legal obligation
- Acknowledgment structurally prior to investigation
- Self-initiated harm disclosure, community confirms being believed
AB2
Correction Willingness
Does this entity change course when shown it is causing harm?
0–5 anchor scale for AB2
- Harmful practices continue even when documented
- Correction eventually, under pressure, minimal
- ≥1 significant course correction based on harm evidence
- Internal process reliably reaches leadership, correction documented
- Self-initiated correction before external pressure
AB3
Transparency
Does this entity operate with genuine transparency about performance and failures?
0–5 anchor scale for AB3
- Performance data not public, only positives shared
- Some data shared, failures when legally required
- ≥1 report disclosing unflattering finding
- Annual report includes failures, gaps, corrective actions
- Comprehensive, independently audited, community can verify
AB4
Systemic Learning
Does this entity institutionally learn from failures?
0–5 anchor scale for AB4
- Failures addressed individually, same failures recur
- Some post-incident review, rarely translates to systemic change
- Formal systemic review process, ≥2 documented systemic changes
- 3+ specific practices changed because of failure analysis
- Longitudinal tracking, findings shared with broader field
AB5
Reparative Action
Does this entity make concrete repair to those it has harmed?
0–5 anchor scale for AB5
- No repair beyond minimal legal settlement
- Gestures toward repair in high-visibility cases only
- ≥1 case of reparative action considered meaningful by those harmed
- Co-designed with harmed parties, considered adequate
- Systematic approach, harmed parties describe repair as genuine