The First Principle Party 2-part Evaluation Framework
The First Sentence Enforcement Act requires an evaluation framework to give it practical meaning. Here is the one the First Principle Party has already built and is actively using.
Every law, policy, program, or government project the First Principle Party examines receives a two-part evaluation. Together, these two measures produce a complete, transparent, and publicly available assessment grounded in structural reality and constitutional alignment.
Part One: The FP Factor
The first step in any evaluation is identifying which first principles are at work in the policy being examined. First principles are the irreducible foundational truths that govern how things actually work, not opinions, not ideological positions, but the basic structural realities that underlie any system.
A useful reference for understanding and identifying first principles is available at simplicable.com/en/first-principles, a curated list of 32 documented first principles. We recommend this resource to anyone learning to apply the First Principle Party's analytical framework.
Each evaluation begins by asking: what first principles are operating here? How many? Are they working together or in conflict? The FP Factor report will list the specific first principles identified as active in the policy being examined and briefly explain how each one operates within it.
If no first principles can be identified as foundational to the policy's design or outcome, the evaluation stops there. A policy with no first principle foundation receives no rating, because there is nothing structurally sound to measure.
Part Two: The GPCN Score
Once the FP Factor establishes that a sound structural foundation exists, the policy is scored against the six goals of the first sentence to the Constitution using the Government Purpose Compliance Number framework. Each of the first five goals is scored from -100 to +100. The sixth goal — liberty achieved — reflects the average of the first five as its natural outcome.
The overall GPCN score determines the evaluation's recommendation.
Pass or Fail
Every evaluation concludes with a clear determination: Pass or Fail.
A Pass indicates that the policy demonstrates both a sound first principle foundation and sufficient alignment with the founding sentence's six goals to be recommended as consistent with the only mission the American people have authorized their government to serve.
A Fail indicates that the policy either lacks a first principle foundation, scores insufficiently across the founding or first sentence's goals, or both. A Fail is not a political judgment. It is a structural and constitutional finding.
Public Transparency
Both the FP Factor report and the GPCN evaluation are published publicly for every assessment the First Principle Party conducts. This transparency is not optional; it is central to what makes the framework trustworthy. Every score, every identified first principle, every written justification is available for public review, challenge, and further research.
This is how the First Principle Party governs its own process, by the same standard of transparency it asks of the government it seeks to reform.
Why and How We Evaluate
Government drift happens when policies are judged by political convenience rather than by whether they actually serve the people. The First Principle Party evaluates every law, policy, and government action using a consistent two-step method - not to reach a predetermined conclusion, but to find what is actually true about whether a policy serves the mission the people authorized. Accuracy matters because the evaluation is public and open to challenge. The method matters because without one, opinion replaces analysis.
GPCN example Graph
How the Government Purpose Compliance Number is computed.
The chart to the left is an example of how the First Principle Party proposes to measure any law, policy, or government program against the six goals of the first sentence to the Constitution.
Each of the first five goals is scored on a scale from −100 to +100. A negative score indicates the policy causes harm to that goal. Zero indicates a neutral effect. A positive score indicates genuine benefit. A policy must score strongly positive across all five goals to be considered compliant with the six goals of the first sentence of the constitution's mission.
Notice the sixth goal, Liberty achieved. This is not scored independently. It is the result of the first five goals working together. When union, justice, tranquility, defense, and welfare are genuinely served, liberty follows as the natural outcome. When they are not, liberty is diminished proportionally. The sixth goal is the measure of what the first five have actually produced.
The single GPCN score reflects both compliance with the founding sentence's mission and the degree of liberty the American people are actually experiencing as a result.
This is a theoretical example showing how the framework operates. Real evaluations using this standard are published on the Complaints Filed page; each one is documented, scored, and open to public challenge.
A Current Example - We call it, Running the Numbers
The following evaluation was conducted on a real and recent government action. It shows the two-step framework applied to an issue that directly affects every American directly: how Congress uses the time the people pay for.
First Principle Party Evaluation
Policy: The Pattern of Government Self-Service: the documented tendency of elected officials and government institutions to prioritize their own financial gain, political survival, and institutional interests over the people they were authorized to serve.
Step One — FP Factor
First principles at work:
Conflict of Interest — When the decision maker personally benefits from the outcome of a decision, the integrity of that decision is structurally compromised. This is not a moral observation — it is a structural one. A system in which elected officials legally trade stocks on non-public information, move between regulatory agencies and the industries they oversee, and write legislation that benefits their donors is a system with conflict of interest built into its foundation.
Incentive structures shape behavior — People and institutions respond to incentives. When the incentive structure of public office rewards self-enrichment, donor service, and institutional self-preservation over mission fulfillment, the predictable outcome is exactly what the documented record shows. The behavior is not aberrant. It is the rational response to a broken incentive structure.
Cause and Effect — Every dollar directed toward self-serving interests is a dollar not directed toward the six goals the people authorized. The documented accumulation of personal wealth by career politicians, the revolving door between government and industry, and the capture of regulatory agencies by the industries they oversee are not isolated incidents. They are the predictable effects of a governance structure without an enforceable mission standard.
Power tends toward self-preservation — This is one of the most consistently documented first principles in the history of human governance. Without external accountability mechanisms, institutions expand their own authority and resources rather than restraining themselves to their authorized purpose. The founders understood this — it is why they built checks and balances. Those checks have been systematically weakened by the very institutions they were designed to constrain.
Transparency as a prerequisite for accountability — A system that operates without public visibility cannot be held accountable. The documented opacity of congressional stock trading, legislative earmarks, and lobbying relationships is not accidental. Opacity is the prerequisite for self-service at scale.
FP Factor: 5 first principles identified — all operating to enable and sustain government self-service at the expense of the authorized mission.
Step Two — GPCN
1. Form a more perfect union: -70
A government that enriches itself at public expense while ordinary citizens struggle to afford healthcare, housing, and education does not form a more perfect union — it creates a documented and growing divide between those who govern and those who are governed. The documented pattern of career politicians arriving middle class and leaving as millionaires on government salaries, combined with the legal stock trading on non-public information, creates a governing class whose interests are structurally separated from the people they represent. That separation is the opposite of union.
2. Establish justice: -80
Justice requires that the same rules apply equally to the governed and the governors. The documented record shows the opposite. Members of Congress legally trade stocks using information unavailable to the public and have repeatedly blocked legislation that would end the practice. Lobbyists representing corporate and foreign interests write legislation that elected officials sign. Regulatory agencies are staffed by former and future employees of the industries they oversee. A system in which those with power write rules that exempt themselves from accountability does not establish justice. It institutionalizes its absence.
3. Ensure domestic tranquility: -60
The documented public response to government self-service is not tranquility — it is the deepening distrust, cynicism, and anger that congressional approval ratings in single digits reflect. A people who believe their government is working against them rather than for them cannot experience domestic tranquility. The chronic anxiety produced by a governing class that visibly serves itself while publicly promising to serve the people is a direct and measurable harm to domestic tranquility.
4. Provide for the common defense: -30
The revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors — documented extensively by the Project on Government Oversight — creates incentives for defense procurement decisions that serve contractor profits rather than genuine defense needs. The Pentagon's eight consecutive failed financial audits, combined with the documented influence of defense industry lobbying on spending decisions, suggests that even the defense budget is not immune to the self-service pattern. Resources allocated to serve contractor interests rather than genuine defense needs represent a direct failure of the common defense standard.
5. Promote the general welfare: -75
The general welfare requires that public resources be directed toward the six goals the people authorized. The documented pattern of foreign aid distributed by the billions while veterans sleep on streets, infrastructure crumbles, and American families choose between medication and food represents a direct inversion of the general welfare priority. DOGE promised $2 trillion in savings from waste and abuse. Total federal spending increased by 6%. The waste was real. The accountability was not. A government that cannot direct its resources toward the people who funded them has failed the general welfare standard by definition.
6. Liberty achieved — average of first five: -63
Overall GPCN Score: -63
Determination: FAIL
The documented pattern of government self-service fails every founding sentence goal simultaneously and fails the justice goal most severely — because justice is the goal most directly violated when those with power write rules that exempt themselves from accountability.
This determination is not partisan. The documented pattern spans administrations and congresses of both parties across decades. It is a structural finding about a system operating without an enforceable mission standard — not a judgment about any individual officeholder.
Some in office have held the line, refused the machine, and paid a price for it. They exist. They are rare. And they are exactly who the First Principle Party intends to stand behind and multiply.
The rest have a standard to meet — for the first time.
GPCN: -63 | FP Factor: 5 first principles identified, all enabling government self-service at the expense of the authorized mission | DETERMINATION: FAIL
Note: This evaluation as published here represents the First Principle Party's analysis method using our two-step framework. They are not legal findings or official government determinations.
