Sorbonne University

Around a score of 3, Awareness typically looks like:

• ·Suffering Detection: Some proactive mechanisms, inconsistent
• ·Contextual Sensitivity: Genuine effort to adapt, some gaps remain
• ·Blind Spot Mitigation: Process exists, has produced ≥1 finding in 3 years
• ·Signal Amplification: Designated staff, ≥1 low-power concern influenced a decision
• ·Anticipatory Awareness: Formal pre-launch assessment for some decisions

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about Sorbonne University’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Empathy typically looks like:

• ·Affective Resonance: Training exists, some staff do this well but inconsistently
• ·Perspective-Taking: ≥1 formal mechanism used, ≥1 decision modified
• ·Non-Judgment: Required bias training, some disaggregated outcome data
• ·Validation: Some staff validate first, mixed experience
• ·Cultural Empathy: ≥1 genuine adaptation co-designed with community

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about Sorbonne University’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Action typically looks like:

• ·Responsiveness: Standards met for most cases, some escalation authority
• ·Proportionality: Genuinely informs response in most cases
• ·Efficacy: Outcome data reviewed annually, ≥1 program modified
• ·Resource Mobilization: Gap analysis completed, ≥1 attempt to mobilize additional
• ·Follow-Through: Defined protocols for some population types

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about Sorbonne University’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Equity typically looks like:

• ·Universality: Coverage data for some populations, outreach attempts
• ·Priority for Vulnerable: ≥1 documented prioritization decision this year
• ·Bias Awareness: Disparities identified, formal investigation, corrective action
• ·Access Design: Access barrier mapping completed, ≥2 barriers removed
• ·Historical Harm Acknowledgment: Formal acknowledgment of ≥1 specific harm, community involved

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about Sorbonne University’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Boundaries typically looks like:

• ·Self-Sustainability: Turnover tracked, ≥1 structural burnout intervention
• ·Autonomy Preservation: ≥1 program designed to build capacity and exit
• ·Scope Clarity: Scope communicated at intake, structured referral exists
• ·Refusal Ethics: Refusal protocol with alternatives in most cases
• ·Consent Orientation: Genuine explanation, withdrawal communicated clearly

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about Sorbonne University’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Accountability typically looks like:

• ·Harm Acknowledgment: ≥1 case acknowledged before legal obligation
• ·Correction Willingness: ≥1 significant course correction based on harm evidence
• ·Transparency: ≥1 report disclosing unflattering finding
• ·Systemic Learning: Formal systemic review process, ≥2 documented systemic changes
• ·Reparative Action: ≥1 case of reparative action considered meaningful by those harmed

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about Sorbonne University’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Systemic Thinking typically looks like:

• ·Root Cause Orientation: Some resources to root cause, ≥1 upstream intervention
• ·Long-Term Impact: 5+ year planning with specific long-term goals, some tracking
• ·Interconnection Awareness: ≥1 case of identifying and responding to unintended consequence
• ·Structural Critique: ≥1 public position taken that carries institutional risk
• ·Coalitional Compassion: Active coalition member with documented contributions

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about Sorbonne University’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Integrity typically looks like:

• ·Consistency Under Pressure: ≥1 case of bearing real cost to maintain commitment
• ·Non-Performance: Some practices maintained regardless of visibility
• ·Internal Consistency: Meaningful effort to apply same values to staff
• ·Values Alignment: Values explicitly considered in some major decisions
• ·Resilience of Care: Core practices in policy, ≥1 leadership transition without degradation

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about Sorbonne University’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).