Before you spend a single dollar pursuing a policy objective, we ask four knock-out questions and run 23 evidence-backed checks. This page explains what each one asks — and why it matters.
Every check looks at the objective: the law, the regulator, the politics, the stakeholders, the implementation, the evidence and the timing — in the jurisdiction you choose. None of them looks at you. The same objective gets the same position on the scale whether a multinational or a small NGO is asking. Your own readiness is a separate layer that only you fill in, and it can move the combined result by at most ten points.
Each check is scored on the same 1–5 ladder, with a dated source, a verification tag and — deliberately — the strongest evidence against. Where there is no basis to judge, the check is marked U (unknown) rather than quietly given a middle score. That distinction is the credibility core of the index: a 3 means "we checked and found a balanced picture"; a U means "we have not yet been able to check."
The result is a structured, defensible judgment index — not a statistical probability.
These are asked first, for every path, and they are not weighed against anything. A "no" on either of the first two ends that path — the objective is not achievable in practice as worded, and we recommend an alternative. A "no" on the third or fourth does the same unless a workaround exists. A gate can also come back as an open condition: not a stop, but a task that must be closed before anyone should say "proceed" without qualification.
Does the objective collide head-on with another statute, a constitutional principle, an international or trade commitment, or binding case law — with no reasonable interpretation that avoids the collision?
Is there a body that can lawfully take this decision — or a lawful way to give it the authority? An objective nobody is empowered to grant cannot be granted, however good the case.
Does the objective depend on something outside the decision itself — a budget line, the agreement of another ministry, an implementation partner? Dependencies do not make an objective impossible, but they decide whether "yes" means anything.
Even if it is decided — is there a practical way to identify who it applies to, to operate the mechanism, and to enforce it? An objective adopted but never implemented is a failure dressed as a success. An experienced regulator asks this first, so we do too.
Each check is scored 1 to 5: 1 — current, direct evidence working strongly against; 3 — checked and found balanced; 5 — current, direct evidence working strongly in favour; U — not enough basis to judge. Every score is run separately for each realistic path to the objective, because the same fact can help one path and hurt another.
Route before score. Before asking how likely, we ask how: which instrument could deliver the objective, who has to sign, and how many hands it passes through. The lighter the instrument, the shorter the road.
What is actually missing — enforcement of an existing rule, implementation of one, a regulation under an existing law, or a new law altogether?
Why it matters: the shorter the ladder, the higher the score. If the norm and the authority already exist and only enforcement or an administrative update is needed, the objective is close. If a new primary norm is missing — or an existing arrangement has to be reversed — it is far. A special case we look for: a norm the government has already announced but never anchored in a binding instrument. "Anchor what you already wrote" is one of the strongest asks in policy.
What is the lightest instrument that can deliver this — a circular, guidance, a call for proposals, regulations, an executive decision, or primary legislation?
Why it matters: a decision a director-general can sign is a different world from one that needs a parliamentary majority. We separate the norm itself from the vehicle used to promote it, and if 80% of the objective can be reached with a lighter instrument, we say so — that is often the better objective.
Has this decision-maker, or one like it, done something like this before — and did it work?
Why it matters: the strongest argument in regulation is "be consistent with yourselves." We search in order: the same unit, the same ministry, the same jurisdiction's law, then a comparable legal system chosen for relevance to this market — never a foreign example picked by default. A close, active, successful precedent at the same regulator scores 5. No precedent anywhere is also a finding: the objective may be too novel for the consistency argument at all.
How many approvals does this path require, how many places can it stall, and is there a defined timetable?
Why it matters: every additional signature is a place where the file can sit for a year. A clear decider, few steps and a timetable score high; a long chain with several bodies that can each say no scores low — even when all of them are sympathetic.
A weak case is a door that slams even when everything else is in favour. Decision-makers need to be able to explain, in public, why they said yes.
Is there a documented public problem, who is harmed by it, and what happens if nobody intervenes?
Why it matters: an objective without a problem behind it reads as a favour to whoever is asking. A well-documented problem, identified victims and a credible "do nothing" scenario give the decision-maker the story they need.
Is the public benefit clear, are the costs reasonable, and is there a way to pay for it?
Why it matters: a short screen, not a full impact assessment — but a decisive one. High public cost with mostly private benefit is close to a veto. Fiscal neutrality — an objective that pays for itself or reallocates existing money — is a super-asset.
Is this the most proportionate way to solve the problem, or is there a simpler option a reasonable official would prefer?
Why it matters: an objective broader than the problem it solves invites the counter-question "why not just…?" If a simpler, superior alternative exists, the professional level will find it — and we would rather find it first.
Ministers come and go; the professional level stays. On most paths the officials who own the file decide more than anyone else — and they leave a paper trail.
What has the regulator itself said on this question — in impact assessments, explanatory notes, consultation responses, committee transcripts, audit reports, parliamentary answers?
Why it matters: regulator admissions are gold. An official document in which the professional level concedes the principle is the strongest finding an assessment can produce, and it becomes the lead argument. A current official position against is the opposite. We search for these aggressively — they are rarely on the front page.
Does saying yes make the institution look good — advance a target, a reform, an existing duty — or does it amount to admitting failure or surrendering authority?
Why it matters: institutions protect themselves. An objective that helps a regulator hit its own success metric moves fast; one that implies it got something wrong, or that hands its powers to someone else, meets quiet resistance regardless of merit.
Is there a named person who owns this file, with leadership behind them and the resources to act?
Why it matters: orphan files do not move. Formal responsibility without prioritisation is the most common reason a reasonable ask sits for years. An active owner with supportive leadership is worth more than a favourable policy.
Has this been asked before and refused? Is there an audit-office finding, an ombudsman report or a court ruling pushing in this direction?
Why it matters: a prior refusal scores low unless we can show what has changed since. External pressure from a body the regulator must answer to — an auditor, an ombudsman, and above all a court — does the opposite: a ruling that compels the direction is a 5.
Does one body control this alone, or must several agree — and are they currently in a dispute?
Why it matters: an objective caught between two ministries inherits their paralysis. Where a live dispute exists with no bridge, we look for a route that avoids it; where one agency controls alone or a working coordination mechanism exists, the road is clear.
How much politics matters depends on the path the objective needs. If it needs a new law, politics is the single heaviest cluster — a bill lives or dies on sponsors, majorities and the electoral calendar. If the outcome can be delivered by a regulator's own decision, politics weighs little — the professional level decides. That is why this cluster's weight moves more than any other between paths, and why the same objective can score very differently on a legislative path and on an administrative one.
Is there a minister, agency head, committee chair or budget office willing to carry this — and does anyone with veto power oppose it?
Why it matters: on paths that require a sponsor, no sponsor means no movement. A capable sponsor with the veto actors supportive or neutral is the best political position an objective can be in; a central veto actor against is close to the worst.
Are there elections, a transition, a caretaker government or a paralysed parliament that directly hit this path?
Why it matters: the same instability that kills a bill can free up the administrative arena — but never automatically. We check the legal limits on a caretaker government in this specific market, for this specific path, rather than assuming.
How easily can an opponent describe this in one credible sentence — "a price increase," "a gift to a tycoon"?
Why it matters: an objective that frames naturally as a public interest, and for which a credible counter-framing is hard to build, survives contact with the media. One that can be summarised as a handout does not, however sound the underlying case.
Who loses, and who else wins. These two checks measure the landscape — the partners and opponents that exist in the world — not your ability to recruit them. That belongs to your readiness layer.
Who is worse off if this succeeds — and are they concentrated, organised and well-connected, or dispersed?
Why it matters: a single concentrated loser with access will fight harder than a thousand dispersed beneficiaries will support. No material loser, or losers who are scattered and unorganised, is the best position; an organised, well-connected loser is the worst.
Are there independent, credible actors whose own interests align with this objective?
Why it matters: an objective that serves a single actor with no natural ally looks like special pleading. A natural coalition of independent, influential voices — patients, professionals, other industries, local government — changes how the decision-maker hears the ask. We check interest, independence and credibility, not just existence.
Gate 4 asks whether implementation is possible at all. These three checks ask how hard it will be — and an experienced regulator weighs that before agreeing to anything.
Can the mechanism run inside existing processes, or does it need new infrastructure, new systems, new staff?
Why it matters: an objective that slots into what already exists, at reasonable cost, is easy to say yes to. An automatic mechanism that replaces a committee is a classic 5. One that requires unrealistic infrastructure to even identify who it applies to is a 1.
Is the duty clear, are violations detectable, and how strong is the incentive to get around it?
Why it matters: a rule that cannot be enforced damages the regulator that issued it. A clear duty, detectable violations and proportionate oversight score high; violations that are hard to detect combined with a strong incentive to circumvent score low. We ask the practical question: who verifies compliance, and how is it measured?
Is there a baseline, are there metrics, and is there a mechanism to correct course?
Why it matters: regulators increasingly refuse to adopt what they cannot measure. Existing data and an update mechanism make the objective self-justifying over time; no data and no metrics leave it exposed to the first bad headline.
The right ask at the wrong moment fails. These checks measure whether the evidence carries the argument, whether a door is open now, and whether the clock is working for you or against you.
Does high-quality research, an impact assessment or proven implementation elsewhere directly support this — or directly undercut it?
Why it matters: quality and fit, not the mere existence of a document. Professional evidence against, at high quality, is a 1 no matter how many favourable press pieces exist. A failed precedent is examined for whether the failure actually helps — "because it failed there, the mechanism we propose is needed."
Is there an open consultation, hearing, pending appeal, call for proposals or draft text right now?
Why it matters: an open process is a door; a closed one has to be reopened, which is a project in itself. An open window scores 5; no open process but one that can be initiated scores 3; a window that has closed with no realistic way to reopen it in time scores 1.
Is there a deadline that forces a decision in this direction — an expiry, a court date, a budget close — and would the result survive a change of government?
Why it matters: a clock that works in our favour is worth more than a sympathetic minister. A deadline that compels a decision the objective's way, plus a result durable across governments, is a 5; a clock working against the objective, or a win that would be quickly reversed, is a 1.
The arithmetic is fixed and runs the same way for every assessment. Each score maps onto a 0–100 scale (1 → 0, 3 → 50, 5 → 100), the seven clusters are weighted by path type, and the result is a position on the feasibility scale. Nobody adjusts a score by hand, and the same answers always give the same number.
Where the objective sits on the 0–100 scale for the leading path — shown to the nearest five. "All neutral" lands at 50, the middle of the scale, as it should.
Every check marked U is counted as 50 in the central number, but as anything from 0 to 100 in the range. The more we could not verify, the wider the range — honestly.
The share of the score that rests on a real, sourced answer rather than a U. Below 70%, the whole assessment is marked "preliminary" and no final go/no-go is given.
| Position | What it means |
|---|---|
| 85 and above | Very high feasibility — though in regulation there is no "certain," and we say so |
| 70 – 84 | High feasibility |
| 55 – 69 | Reasonable feasibility |
| 40 – 54 | Mixed feasibility |
| 25 – 39 | Low feasibility |
| 10 – 24 | Marginal feasibility |
| Below 10, or a failed gate | Not achievable in practice as worded — we recommend an alternative objective |
Then your layer. Five readiness questions — about your organisation, not the world — that only you answer. An average client sits exactly on the world score; strong execution pulls the combined result up, weak execution pulls it down, and never by more than ten points. A failed gate stays "not achievable" whatever your readiness: execution never overrides illegality.
Members run the Feasibility Assessment directly; everyone else can start with a conversation.