This appendix provides practical examples of how to calculate the Righteousness Index (RI) for each of the five RI variants. Each example walks through the full calculation process from data collection to final score interpretation.
I.1 RI Calculation Overview
The Righteousness Index (RI) is calculated through a structured, multi-step methodology:
Step
Activity
Description
1
Determine Assessment Context
Identify the RI variant (RI-D, RI-P, RI-O, RI-A, RI-R) and the specific system, team, or organization being assessed
2
Collect Evidence
Gather evidence across all Five Pillars using the assessment dimensions defined for the specific RI variant
3
Score Each Dimension
For each assessment dimension, assign a score (0–100) based on the evidence collected
4
Calculate Pillar Scores
Average the scores of the assessment dimensions within each pillar
5
Calculate Overall RI Score
Calculate a weighted average of the five Pillar Scores
6
Assign Rating
Based on the RI Score, assign a righteousness rating
7
Document and Report
Document the assessment methodology, evidence sources, scoring rationale, and results
I.2 RI-D Calculation Example (Developer)
Scenario: A machine learning development team at a mid-sized technology company is being assessed using RI-D.
Step 1: Determine Assessment Context
Field
Details
RI Variant
RI-D (Developer Righteousness Index)
Team/Project
ML Model Development Team — Customer Churn Prediction
Organization
TechSolutions Inc.
Assessment Date
August 2026
Assessment Type
Initial
Step 2: Collect Evidence
Evidence is collected across all Five Pillars. The following scores are assigned based on documentation review, code analysis, and team interviews.
Step 3: Score Each Dimension
Integrity — Assessment Scores
Dimension
Score (0–100)
Evidence Summary
Code Transparency
85
Code is well-documented and version-controlled; some proprietary modules are not open for review
Truthful Documentation
75
Documentation is comprehensive but some capability claims are exaggerated
No Hidden Functionality
90
No hidden functionality detected; third-party components reviewed
Integrity Pillar Score
83.3
Average of the three dimensions
Justice — Assessment Scores
Dimension
Score (0–100)
Evidence Summary
Bias Detection
70
Bias tests are conducted but not consistently across all models
Fair Data Practices
80
Training data is generally representative; some demographic gaps identified
Equitable Outcomes
65
Outcomes show minor disparities across demographic groups
Justice Pillar Score
71.7
Average of the three dimensions
Stewardship — Assessment Scores
Dimension
Score (0–100)
Evidence Summary
Ethical Design Process
60
Ethics considerations are partially integrated; no formal ethical review process
Governance Compliance
85
Development practices generally comply with organizational policies
Accountability
75
Roles and responsibilities are defined but not always documented
Stewardship Pillar Score
73.3
Average of the three dimensions
Wisdom — Assessment Scores
Dimension
Score (0–100)
Evidence Summary
Risk Assessment
70
Risk assessments are conducted for major features but not all changes
Prudent Design
80
Design choices are generally prudent and well-reasoned
Long-Term Thinking
65
Some consideration of long-term implications; could be strengthened
Wisdom Pillar Score
71.7
Average of the three dimensions
Beneficence — Assessment Scores
Dimension
Score (0–100)
Evidence Summary
Social Impact Consideration
60
Social impact is considered but not formally assessed
Environmental Impact
55
Environmental impact is not systematically considered
Positive Contribution
70
The system contributes positively to user experience
Beneficence Pillar Score
61.7
Average of the three dimensions
Step 4: Calculate Pillar Scores
Pillar
Score (%)
Integrity
83.3
Justice
71.7
Stewardship
73.3
Wisdom
71.7
Beneficence
61.7
Step 5: Calculate Overall RI-D Score
Using RI-D Weighting:
Pillar
Score
Weight
Weighted Score
Integrity
83.3
25%
20.8
Justice
71.7
20%
14.3
Stewardship
73.3
20%
14.7
Wisdom
71.7
20%
14.3
Beneficence
61.7
15%
9.3
RI-D Score
73.4
Step 6: Assign Rating
Score Range
Rating
73.4
Proficient
Step 7: Interpretation
The development team demonstrates Proficient righteousness (73.4). Key strengths include Integrity (83.3) and Stewardship (73.3). Key improvement areas include Beneficence (61.7) and Justice (71.7).
I.3 RI-P Calculation Example (Provider)
Scenario: An AI platform provider is being assessed using RI-P.
Step 1: Determine Assessment Context
Field
Details
RI Variant
RI-P (AI Provider Righteousness Index)
Provider/Platform
AICloud Platform
Organization
CloudAI Solutions
Assessment Date
August 2026
Assessment Type
Initial
Step 2: Score Each Dimension
Pillar
Dimension Scores
Pillar Score
Integrity
80, 75, 85
80.0
Justice
70, 75, 65
70.0
Stewardship
85, 80, 75
80.0
Wisdom
70, 65, 60
65.0
Beneficence
60, 65, 70
65.0
Step 3: Calculate Overall RI-P Score
Using RI-P Weighting:
Pillar
Score
Weight
Weighted Score
Integrity
80.0
25%
20.0
Justice
70.0
20%
14.0
Stewardship
80.0
25%
20.0
Wisdom
65.0
15%
9.8
Beneficence
65.0
15%
9.8
RI-P Score
73.6
Step 4: Assign Rating
Score Range
Rating
73.6
Proficient
I.4 RI-O Calculation Example (Organization)
Scenario: A government agency is being assessed using RI-O.
Step 1: Determine Assessment Context
Field
Details
RI Variant
RI-O (Organization Righteousness Index)
Organization
State Department of Transportation
Assessment Date
August 2026
Assessment Type
Initial
Step 2: Score Each Dimension
Pillar
Dimension Scores
Pillar Score
Integrity
85, 80, 90
85.0
Justice
75, 70, 80
75.0
Stewardship
80, 85, 75
80.0
Wisdom
70, 65, 60
65.0
Beneficence
65, 70, 75
70.0
Step 3: Calculate Overall RI-O Score
Using RI-O Weighting:
Pillar
Score
Weight
Weighted Score
Integrity
85.0
20%
17.0
Justice
75.0
20%
15.0
Stewardship
80.0
25%
20.0
Wisdom
65.0
20%
13.0
Beneficence
70.0
15%
10.5
RI-O Score
75.5
Step 4: Assign Rating
Score Range
Rating
75.5
Proficient
I.5 RI-A Calculation Example (Agent)
Scenario: An autonomous customer service AI agent is being assessed using RI-A.
Step 1: Determine Assessment Context
Field
Details
RI Variant
RI-A (AI Agent Righteousness Index)
Agent Name/ID
ServiceBot v3.2
Organization
CustomerCare Inc.
Assessment Date
August 2026
Assessment Type
Initial
Step 2: Score Each Dimension
Pillar
Dimension Scores
Pillar Score
Integrity
90, 85, 85
86.7
Justice
75, 80, 70
75.0
Stewardship
80, 85, 75
80.0
Wisdom
70, 65, 70
68.3
Beneficence
85, 80, 75
80.0
Step 3: Calculate Overall RI-A Score
Using RI-A Weighting:
Pillar
Score
Weight
Weighted Score
Integrity
86.7
25%
21.7
Justice
75.0
20%
15.0
Stewardship
80.0
20%
16.0
Wisdom
68.3
20%
13.7
Beneficence
80.0
15%
12.0
RI-A Score
78.4
Step 4: Assign Rating
Score Range
Rating
78.4
Proficient
I.6 RI-R Calculation Example (Robot)
Scenario: A healthcare assistance robot is being assessed using RI-R.
Step 1: Determine Assessment Context
Field
Details
RI Variant
RI-R (Robot Righteousness Index)
Robot Name/Model
CareBot 5000
Organization
HealthTech Robotics
Assessment Date
August 2026
Assessment Type
Initial
Step 2: Score Each Dimension
Pillar
Dimension Scores
Pillar Score
Integrity
85, 80, 90
85.0
Justice
80, 85, 75
80.0
Stewardship
90, 85, 80
85.0
Wisdom
75, 80, 70
75.0
Beneficence
80, 85, 75
80.0
Step 3: Calculate Overall RI-R Score
Using RI-R Weighting:
Pillar
Score
Weight
Weighted Score
Integrity
85.0
20%
17.0
Justice
80.0
25%
20.0
Stewardship
85.0
25%
21.3
Wisdom
75.0
15%
11.3
Beneficence
80.0
15%
12.0
RI-R Score
81.6
Step 4: Assign Rating
Score Range
Rating
81.6
Righteous
I.7 Summary of All RI Calculation Examples
RI Variant
Pillar Scores
Overall Score
Rating
RI-D
I:83.3, J:71.7, S:73.3, W:71.7, B:61.7
73.4
Proficient
RI-P
I:80.0, J:70.0, S:80.0, W:65.0, B:65.0
73.6
Proficient
RI-O
I:85.0, J:75.0, S:80.0, W:65.0, B:70.0
75.5
Proficient
RI-A
I:86.7, J:75.0, S:80.0, W:68.3, B:80.0
78.4
Proficient
RI-R
I:85.0, J:80.0, S:85.0, W:75.0, B:80.0
81.6
Righteous
I.8 RGS Calculation Example
Scenario: The same organization is reassessed after 12 months to calculate the Righteousness Growth Score (RGS).
Baseline RI-O Scores (T1)
Pillar
Score
Integrity
85.0
Justice
75.0
Stewardship
80.0
Wisdom
65.0
Beneficence
70.0
RI-O Total
75.5
Follow-up RI-O Scores (T2)
Pillar
Score
Integrity
90.0
Justice
80.0
Stewardship
85.0
Wisdom
72.0
Beneficence
78.0
RI-O Total
81.4
RGS Calculation
RGS = RI(T2) − RI(T1)
RGS = 81.4 − 75.5 = 5.9
RGS Interpretation
RGS Range
Interpretation
5.9
Moderate Improvement
The organization has demonstrated moderate improvement (+5.9) in righteousness governance over 12 months. Key growth areas include Wisdom (+7.0) and Beneficence (+8.0).
I.9 Key Takeaways
Takeaway
Explanation
RI provides a quantitative measure
RI transforms righteousness from an abstract concept into a measurable score
RGS tracks improvement
RGS measures whether organizations are becoming more righteous over time
Pillar scores identify strengths and weaknesses
Individual pillar scores reveal specific areas for improvement
Weighting reflects context
Different RI variants use different weightings based on stakeholder context
Regular assessment enables growth
Annual or semi-annual assessments enable continuous improvement tracking
