Built a public dashboard grading the Carney government across 11 policy areas — would love blunt feedback on trust, clarity, and methodology

Hey everyone!

I built a public dashboard tracking the federal Carney government across 11 policy areas, with A–F grades for things like housing, climate, defence, ethics, affordability, and immigration.

Live site: https://sawatter.github.io/canada-under-carney/

The core idea is simple: if you’re going to publish a political scorecard, the rubric, reasoning, and sources should be public enough that people can inspect the method instead of just taking the grades on faith.

I’m not looking for partisan reactions about whether Carney is doing well or badly. I’m trying to get feedback on whether the dashboard actually feels credible, transparent, and understandable to someone seeing it fresh.

The most useful feedback would be:

1. Which dimension feels least defensible, and why?

2. Can you follow how a grade was produced, or where do you lose confidence?

3. What feels missing — source, metric, explanation, or UX?

I’ve already done a pass tightening threshold language and exposing more of the scoring logic, but I want blunt outside feedback on what still feels too subjective, assumption-driven, or hard to trust.

If one thing makes you bounce or doubt the project, that’s exactly what I want to hear.

Thanks!