@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+---
+title: "PyPSA-Eur Assessment"
+project_name: "PyPSA-Eur"
+project_url: "https://github.com/pypsa/pypsa-eur"
+report_path: "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/protontypes/open-traceability-assessment/refs/heads/main/reports/20260612-130828_pypsa-eur_open_traceability_assessment/pypsa-eur_open_traceability_assessment.runs.json"
+report_source: "https://github.com/protontypes/open-traceability-assessment/tree/main/reports/20260612-130828_pypsa-eur_open_traceability_assessment"
+summary: "An open sector-coupled optimisation model of the European energy system."
+---
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+hero:
+  eyebrow: "Evidence Chain Assessment"
+  claim_header: "Assessed Claim"
+  score_label: "Traceability Score"
+  meta:
+    project_source: "Project Source"
+    framework_version: "Framework Version"
+    assessment_date: "Assessment Date"
+    human_review: "Human Review"
+    confirmed: "Confirmed"
+    pending: "Pending"
+
+pathway:
+  title: "Claim Traceability Pathway"
+  description: "Inspection trail mapping the connections from raw inputs to the published claim."
+  legend:
+    strong: "Strong inspectability (≥80)"
+    moderate: "Moderate inspectability (55-79)"
+    weak: "Weak inspectability (<55)"
+    linkage: "Open Linkage Connection"
+
+health_summary:
+  title: "Traceability Health Summary"
+  description: "Scan diagnosis of where the evidence chain stands and what requires attention first."
+  strongest:
+    kicker: "Strongest Area"
+    description: "This stage provides solid evidence, making calculations and documentation highly inspectable and reusable for external actors."
+  weakest:
+    kicker: "Traceability Gap"
+    description: "This is the weakest segment of the evidence chain. Gaps in records or lack of linkage break the evidence chain here."
+  missing:
+    kicker: "Missing Artifacts"
+  priority_action:
+    kicker: "First Priority Action"
+    title_prefix: "Strengthen"
+
+linkage:
+  title: "Evidence Linkage Summary"
+  description: "Open Linkage is not a standalone category; it is the connectivity of the evidence chain. Below is the connection status of the connection links between each step in this project's journey."
+  badge: "Framework Metric"
+  status:
+    connected: "Connected"
+    partially_connected: "Partially Connected"
+    disconnected: "Disconnected"
+
+detailed_inspection:
+  title: "Detailed Dimension Inspection"
+  description: "Granular findings for each processing step in the Open Traceability framework."
+  evidence_found: "Evidence Found"
+  gaps_identified: "Gaps Identified"
+  no_gaps: "No significant gaps identified. This stage is fully documented and verifiable."
+  why_matters_label: "Why this matters for Traceability:"
+  next_step_label: "Recommended next step:"
+  artifacts_title: "Inspectable Evidence Artifacts"
+  relevance_label: "Relevance:"
+
+gaps:
+  title: "Critical Traceability Gaps"
+  description: "Inspection details of where the evidence chain breaks down and what that implies for public trust."
+  table:
+    gap: "Identified Gap"
+    impact: "Impact on Traceability"
+    remediation: "Suggested Remediation"
+
+roadmap:
+  title: "Remediation & Improvements Roadmap"
+  description: "Actionable roadmap prioritized by implementation complexity."
+
+methodology:
+  disclaimer_title: "Disclaimer & Assessment Methodology"
+  disclaimer_text: "This score was produced via LLM-assisted assessment of the repository structure and the supplied evidence bundle. These findings should be treated as a directional pilot signal rather than a verified rating. For more details on our pilot objectives and the development path toward rules-based human review, see the <a href=\"/#roadmap\" class=\"inline-link-inline\">Development Roadmap</a>."
+  definitions_title: "Framework Dimension Definitions"
+  review_notes_title: "Human Review Notes"
+  review_notes_approved: "Independent human review of this assessment is complete and findings are confirmed."
+  review_notes_pending: "Human review of this assessment report is pending. An independent reviewer must inspect the repository references to verify the findings."
+
+pending:
+  eyebrow: "Assessment Pending Review"
+  source_repo: "Project Source Repository"
+  claim_header: "Assessed Claim"
+  signals_title: "Self-Reported Evidence Signals"
+  in_progress_text: "The quantitative inspectability assessment for this project is currently in progress. The full evidence-chain tracing interface will be generated automatically once the report credentials are compiled."
@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 title: "Exemplars"
 subtitle: "Concrete examples of strong traceability in practice."
 items:
-  - title: "PyPSA"
+  - title: "PyPSA-Earth"
     category: "Energy System Optimisation"
     description: "A global benchmark for transparent power-sector planning with open-source models and data workflows."
     url: "/assessments/pypsa-earth"
+  - title: "PyPSA-Eur"
+    category: "Energy System Optimisation"
+    description: "An open sector-coupled optimisation model of the European energy system."
+    url: "/assessments/pypsa-eur"
   - title: "Global Forest Watch"
     category: "Forest Monitoring"
     description: "Real-time monitoring of tree-cover loss powered by open APIs and verifiable satellite data layers."
     url: "/assessments/global-forest-watch"
-  - title: "InVest"
-    category: "Ecosystem Services"
-    description: "Standardized models for mapping and valuing nature's benefits, with explicit input-to-output linkage."
-    url: "/assessments/invest"
 
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+checks:
+  - id: 1
+    title: "Input Data to Models & Software Connection"
+    question: "Are data input paths and schemas programmatically defined inside the code files or configurations?"
+    source_stage_index: 0
+    target_stage_index: 1
+  - id: 2
+    title: "Models & Software to Execution Connection"
+    question: "Is code execution managed through versioned workflow scripts (e.g. Snakemake pipelines) rather than manual scripts?"
+    source_stage_index: 1
+    target_stage_index: 2
+  - id: 3
+    title: "Execution Run to Community & Review Connection"
+    question: "Are execution outputs and logs tested automatically (CI/CD) and verified inside public pull request reviews?"
+    source_stage_index: 2
+    target_stage_index: 3
+  - id: 4
+    title: "Community Review to Publication Connection"
+    question: "Are peer reviews, community issues, and discussions linked directly to published methodology reports?"
+    source_stage_index: 3
+    target_stage_index: 4
+  - id: 5
+    title: "Publication to Stated Environmental Claim Connection"
+    question: "Does the final published paper cite the exact dataset identifiers, model hashes, and run logs that produced the results?"
+    source_stage_index: 4
+    target_stage_index: 5
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+phases:
+  - id: "quick"
+    badge: "Phase 1"
+    title: "Quick Wins"
+    subtitle: "Low effort, high immediate return."
+    actions:
+      - title: "Add CITATION.cff file"
+        description: "Enables clear publication-to-repository citation schema."
+      - title: "Commit top-level LICENSE"
+        description: "Resolves legal terms of software and dataset inspectability."
+      - title: "Link communication channels"
+        description: "Add status/discord badges to repository README files."
+
+  - id: "medium"
+    badge: "Phase 2"
+    title: "Medium Effort"
+    subtitle: "Standard engineering practices."
+    actions:
+      - title: "Specify configurations in config files"
+        description: "Provide explicit parameters and dataset configurations in repository."
+      - title: "Lock computational environments"
+        description: "Lock dependencies using Conda-lock or Docker image digests."
+      - title: "Archive automated workflow logs"
+        description: "Publish CI test summaries and solver objective check values."
+
+  - id: "strategic"
+    badge: "Phase 3"
+    title: "Strategic Upgrades"
+    subtitle: "Highest traceability return."
+    actions:
+      - title: "Publish workflow runs on Zenodo"
+        description: "Create persistent, immutable archives of the full execution outputs."
+      - title: "Build claims-to-evidence provenance graphs"
+        description: "Establish a machine-readable map of the end-to-end evidence trail."
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+stages:
+  - id: 1
+    short_name: "Input Data"
+    full_name: "Open Input Data and Measurement Evidence"
+    definition: "Identifiable, documented, attributable, versioned raw measurement evidence inputs."
+    why_it_matters: "Without identifiable raw input data, the foundation of the claim cannot be verified, hiding potential errors or data manipulation."
+    recommended_next_step: "Publish data manifests on Zenodo and document quality controls."
+    missing_artifact: "Unique dataset DOIs & licenses"
+    priority_action: "Register raw dataset bundles with persistent repositories (e.g. Zenodo) and define licensing metadata."
+    gap_name: "Dataset not linked or versioned"
+    gap_impact_level: "High"
+    gap_impact_desc: "Blocks inspection of inputs"
+    gap_remediation: "Register raw datasets in Zenodo and cite unique DOIs in config files."
+    gap_threshold: 75
+
+  - id: 2
+    short_name: "Models & Software"
+    full_name: "Open-Source Models, Methods, and Software"
+    definition: "Inspectability of Analytical logic via code repositories, configurations, and license files."
+    why_it_matters: "Without open source models and code, computations are hidden in a black box, making independent scientific review impossible."
+    recommended_next_step: "Add an SPDX AGPLv3 header and root LICENSE file."
+    missing_artifact: "Top-level LICENSE files"
+    priority_action: "Add an OSI-compliant LICENSE file to the root repository and specify dependencies via lockfiles."
+    gap_name: "Missing root license or dependencies"
+    gap_impact_level: "Medium"
+    gap_impact_desc: "Restricts model inspectability"
+    gap_remediation: "Add a LICENSE file (e.g. AGPL-3.0) and export environment lockfiles."
+    gap_threshold: 80
+
+  - id: 3
+    short_name: "Execution Run"
+    full_name: "Open Execution and Reproducibility"
+    definition: "Computational environments, workflows, run logs, and outputs make rerun processes inspectable."
+    why_it_matters: "Without open run configurations and execution records, we cannot verify if the software was run correctly or generated the reported results."
+    recommended_next_step: "Export Conda lockfiles and upload workflow execution logs."
+    missing_artifact: "Execution run configs & workflow logs"
+    priority_action: "Configure an end-to-end Snakemake workflow and publish the full run logs linking inputs to final figures."
+    gap_name: "Workflow run details not archived"
+    gap_impact_level: "Critical"
+    gap_impact_desc: "Restricts computational reproducibility"
+    gap_remediation: "Archive Snakemake workflow runs and publish log files on Zenodo."
+    gap_threshold: 75
+
+  - id: 4
+    short_name: "Community Review"
+    full_name: "Open Community and Review"
+    definition: "Scrutiny, peer review, issue tracking, and responses to replication challenges are visible."
+    why_it_matters: "Without open review channels, the process of critique, debugging, peer-review, and community scrutiny is kept completely invisible."
+    recommended_next_step: "Create public issue boards and invite third-party replication."
+    missing_artifact: "Scrutiny logs & replication results"
+    priority_action: "Document PR review guidelines, set up public issue boards, and make replication logs accessible."
+    gap_name: "Review and replication logs hidden"
+    gap_impact_level: "Medium"
+    gap_impact_desc: "Hides validation gate process"
+    gap_remediation: "Maintain an open-source technical review tracker in public channels."
+    gap_threshold: 75
+
+  - id: 5
+    short_name: "Publication"
+    full_name: "Open Publications and Communication"
+    definition: "Resulting reports, papers, and dashboards are openly accessible and reference source materials."
+    why_it_matters: "Without open access publications and summaries, final findings are hidden from general scrutiny and cannot be easily cited."
+    recommended_next_step: "Publish methodologies in open journals and link to specific run IDs."
+    missing_artifact: "Open access publications"
+    priority_action: "Release method documents in open-access formats and link claims to exact workflow artifacts."
+    gap_name: "Publication lacks direct evidence citation"
+    gap_impact_level: "High"
+    gap_impact_desc: "Claims are unlinked to runs"
+    gap_remediation: "Add structured CITATION.cff and link claim statements to run hashes."
+    gap_threshold: 75
+
+  - id: 6
+    short_name: "Open Linkage"
+    full_name: "Open Linkage"
+    definition: "The versioned, explicit connectivity linking data, models, execution, review, and publication steps."
+    why_it_matters: "Without versioned linkage records, all other steps are disconnected silos, destroying the integrity of the evidence chain."
+    recommended_next_step: "Build a machine-readable JSON provenance record linking code to outputs."
+    missing_artifact: "Dynamic provenance graph mapping"
+    priority_action: "Create a versioned provenance graph mapping every step of the computation from source data to claim."
+    gap_name: ""
+    gap_impact_level: ""
+    gap_impact_desc: ""
+    gap_remediation: ""
+    gap_threshold: 75