Public Deal Test
A six-factor scored assessment of whether a public incentive agreement was structured to genuinely serve the community that granted it.
Public subsidy agreements for large facilities — tax abatements, fee waivers, infrastructure grants, land discounts — are matters of public record. The Public Deal Test applies six scored criteria to that record to assess process quality: not whether the deal was “good,” but whether it was structured to enable an informed, accountable public decision.
Phase C scored outputs are now live on the Public Cost pillar. The methodology was ratified before any named project was scored.
Rating labels
Each factor is rated using three labels. The label reflects what BEI found — or did not find — in the public records reviewed. It is not a verdict about intent or legality.
Heightened Review Standard
When specific conditions are present in the public record, BEI applies a Heightened Review Standard to PDT Factor 1 (Need). This means BEI requires stronger documentary evidence before rating Factor 1 as Documented — because commitment signals in the public record suggest the project may have proceeded regardless of the incentive.
Heightened Review Standard is a methodology disclosure, not a verdict. Its presence on an output means BEI applied more rigorous evidentiary requirements to Factor 1, not that BEI concluded the incentive was unnecessary.
Tier 1 — Commitment Signals (decisive)
A single Tier 1 signal triggers Heightened Review Standard, regardless of other factors.
- ·Company acquired land before incentive was approved
- ·Company filed building permits before incentive approval
- ·Grid interconnection studies were already underway before incentive approval
Tier 2 — Context Signals (count-based)
Net ≥4 of 7 Tier 2 signals (after subtracting counter-signals) also triggers Heightened Review Standard.
- ·Project appeared in utility planning before deal closed
- ·Region is already an established facility corridor
- ·Few equivalent grid-ready sites exist nearby
- ·Company faced urgent capacity demand at time of approval
- ·Officials published evidence of competing offers (counter-signal: reduces count)
- ·Developer provided an independent but-for analysis (counter-signal: reduces count)
- ·Incentive was independently reviewed by a third party (counter-signal: reduces count)
When Heightened Review Standard is triggered, confidence on Factor 1 is capped at Medium unless positive documentary evidence of a genuine competing jurisdiction is found. Every output where HRS fires displays a mandatory methodology note on Factor 1.
The six factors
Primary factors carry higher weight in the composite score. Secondary factors assess the quality and enforceability of the agreement’s terms.
Was the incentive actually necessary to secure the project?
This factor asks whether the company needed the subsidy to choose this location — or would have built here anyway.
A but-for analysis: would the project have located in this jurisdiction without the public incentive? Assessing Need requires reviewing competing bid documentation, publicly disclosed site-selection criteria, and any communications entered into the public record. The absence of competing bids is not, by itself, evidence that the subsidy was unnecessary — it may indicate the subsidy itself foreclosed competitive consideration.
Evidence indicators
- ·Competing bid documentation in the public record
- ·Applicant statements about site-selection constraints
- ·Comparable jurisdictions where similar projects located without subsidy
- ·Publicly disclosed internal rate of return or financing requirements
- ·A formal but-for analysis conducted by an entity independent of the developer
If Heightened Review Standard is triggered, confidence on this factor is capped at Medium unless counter-signal evidence is found.
Did the community negotiate from its actual position of strength?
This factor asks whether the community understood what unique advantages it held — like scarce land or power access — before negotiating.
Grid access, permitted parcel availability, water infrastructure, and permitting speed are real constraints for large facility siting. A community with scarce grid capacity or few developable parcels has genuine leverage. This factor scores whether the public record shows the community assessed its own position before or during negotiations — not whether the outcome was favorable.
Evidence indicators
- ·Independent advisors retained before or during negotiations
- ·Formal assessment of site rarity or unique infrastructure advantages
- ·Available grid interconnection capacity relative to project requirements
- ·Permitted industrial parcel availability within the region
- ·Water infrastructure capacity for anticipated cooling load
Were all foregone public revenues counted and disclosed before approval?
This factor asks whether every taxing body — school districts, fire, county — counted up what it was giving up, and told the public before the vote.
Subsidy cost is often presented in narrow terms — the city abatement. Total public cost includes foregone revenue across every taxing body: city, county, school district, fire district, water district. This factor scores whether the public record shows complete cost accounting across all affected bodies, before any vote.
Evidence indicators
- ·Disclosure of total estimated value across the full abatement term
- ·Breakdown by affected taxing body, each identified separately
- ·Term length and any caps or ramp-up schedule
- ·Infrastructure investment required from public entities
- ·Fiscal impact analysis (independent or from the public entity) available in public record
What durable public benefit was secured — with measurable, time-bound terms?
This factor asks what specific, measurable things the company promised the community in exchange — not vague aspirations, but written commitments.
Job commitments, local procurement targets, community benefit agreements, and infrastructure investments are the community's side of the deal. This factor scores whether commitments are specific and verifiable — permanent versus construction jobs distinguished, wages defined, timelines set — not aspirational language.
Evidence indicators
- ·Permanent job commitment: number, wage floor, benefit requirement, duration
- ·Construction vs. permanent distinction drawn with wage floors for each
- ·Local procurement target or preference clause with defined measurement
- ·Infrastructure investment terms with ownership and maintenance defined
- ·Community benefit agreement with enforceable milestones and verification mechanism
Are there enforceable mechanisms if commitments are not met?
This factor asks whether the deal has real enforcement built in — clawback provisions that activate if the company does not follow through.
Clawback provisions, annual reporting requirements, third-party audit rights, and penalty clauses are the enforcement architecture of a deal. This factor scores whether the agreement contains all four elements: a cap on abatement value or duration, a clawback with defined trigger conditions, a public reporting requirement, and an identified enforcement body with actual authority.
Evidence indicators
- ·Cap on total abatement value or duration
- ·Clawback provision with specific, verifiable trigger conditions
- ·Annual public reporting requirement on commitment performance
- ·Third-party audit right or equivalent verification mechanism
- ·Identified enforcement body with actual authority to enforce
Did the public receive meaningful advance notice with enough time to respond?
This factor asks whether residents knew who was getting the subsidy — and key deal terms — at least 30 days before the binding vote.
This factor is narrowly scoped to notice within the deal-making process. The Notice Quality Score (NQS) assesses broader notice quality in depth. This factor asks only: was notice present, were key terms public, and was the actual developer — not a shell entity — identified in public records before the binding vote? BEI applies a 30-day minimum, derived from the complexity of incentive agreements, not adopted from any legal notice minimum.
Evidence indicators
- ·Public notice issued ≥30 days before binding vote or approval
- ·Key terms (value, duration, beneficiary legal name, benefits exchanged) publicly disclosed in the notice
- ·Actual developer or operator identified by legal name at time of notice
- ·No NDA concealing key terms from public disclosure before the vote
How scores appear
Phase C scored outputs are now live on the Public Deal Test section of the Public Cost pillar. Each scored agreement shows:
Right of reply
Any named public agency, municipality, company, utility, developer, or other directly referenced party that believes a scored output contains a documentation error, missing public record, misapplied factor, or methodology issue may request a methodology review.
Brinley Institute will acknowledge review requests and evaluate submitted materials within 30 days when reasonably possible, or longer if the review requires access to public records not immediately available. If the review identifies a documented error or materially relevant public record not included in the original review, Brinley may update the score, revise the explanation, add clarifying context, or publish a methodology note.
A methodology review request does not guarantee a score change, removal of an output, or editorial control over Brinley Institute’s analysis. Brinley Institute does not score intent, character, legality, corruption, or wrongdoing. Scores reflect what was found, partially found, or not found in the public record reviewed under the published methodology.
Submit methodology review requests to:
review@brinley.instituteDoctrine
The Public Deal Test scores process quality against published criteria. It does not assert that any party acted in bad faith, committed fraud, or violated any law. A low score means the public record does not show the agreement was structured to enable informed, accountable public decision-making — not that misconduct occurred.
Published by the Brinley Engineering Institute, Public-Record Correlation Institute. Aggregator, not author (PAT-035 / Humanity Ledger §2.6). Methodology ratified before any named project was scored (EASTON-LMC-2026-06-17-PDT-NQS v1.4 · XANDER-SPEC-2026-06-17-PDT-NQS-X-REFERENCE, APEX RATIFIED 2026-06-18 · PDT-NQS Amendment 001).
Mandatory disclaimer — appears on every scored output
These factor ratings reflect the state of public records reviewed by Brinley Institute as of the date noted. They do not constitute a finding of wrongdoing, negligence, bad faith, or illegality by any named official, agency, company, or party. “Not Found in Public Record” means BEI did not find the item in the records reviewed — not that the item does not exist. Brinley Institute does not score intent, character, or legality.
Phase C — scored outputs live 2026-06-18. Methodology ratified before any named project was scored. See Civic Intelligence for phase definitions. PDT-NQS Amendment 001 (v1.4) · APEX RATIFIED 2026-06-18.