Interrogability Index™
- Published
- June 27, 2026
- Author
- Stephen F. Leider
- Publisher
- Leider Capital
- Canonical URL
- lensanalysis.com/constitution/ti-060
- Part of
- Constitution of Transformation Intelligence™
- OID
- OID-2026-TI-II-001
- Lens URI
- lens://constitution/ti-060
Principle
Organizations should measure their capacity for disciplined inquiry through the Interrogability Index™ — the degree to which recommendations remain open to constructive challenge before execution. The resulting score represents the organization’s ability to transform intelligence into informed judgment.
Definition
The Interrogability Index™ scores organizations across eight dimensions corresponding to the core dimensions of the Interrogability Principle™: Assumption Visibility, Question Coverage, Evidence Traceability, Reasoning Transparency, Human Readiness, Decision Explainability, Alternative Visibility, and Uncertainty Visibility. Score represents the organization’s demonstrated capacity to exercise disciplined inquiry rather than passive acceptance of intelligence.
Operating Law
High Interrogability Index™ does not slow decisions — it accelerates confident decisions by eliminating avoidable error before commitment. Organizations with high II™ scores compound decision quality over time because institutional learning from structured inquiry reduces the cost of future interrogation. Organizations with low II™ scores repeatedly pay the cost of undiscovered assumptions after execution.
Implications
- 1.II™ is a leading indicator of Transformation Efficiency™ (TI-103) — organizations with high Interrogability Index™ consistently generate higher TE™ because they avoid executing on flawed intelligence. A low II™ score predicts execution failure regardless of intelligence quality.
- 2.II™ relationship to existing scoring systems: TCS™ measures transformation capacity. AAS™ measures AI absorption. TAS™ measures transformation absorbability. II™ measures decision governance quality. Together they form a comprehensive organizational intelligence readiness framework.
- 3.II™ is a Phase 2 Lens Analysis™ addition — ratified constitutionally now, built after existing scoring layers are stable. When built, it appears as a governance quality signal on every Lens Analysis™ — qualifying whether the organization has the decision infrastructure to actually use the recommendations The Lens™ generates.
- 4.Board governance implication: Boards with low II™ scores are structurally unable to govern AI systems effectively — they lack the interrogation capability to challenge AI recommendations before execution. II™ therefore belongs on board agendas alongside financial metrics as a governance infrastructure indicator.
Typed Relationships
Primary measurement instrument of Interrogability Principle™
Extends TCS™ scoring framework with decision governance quality dimension — II™ measures whether the organization can responsibly use its transformation capacity
Measures the effective utilization of Decision Visibility Infrastructure™ — high DVI™ with low II™ indicates visibility without interrogation practice
Implements Measurement Integrity Principle™ — II™ applies Measurement Integrity to the measurement of decision governance itself
Related Principles
Citation
Leider, Stephen F. "Interrogability Index™." Constitution of Transformation Intelligence™, TI-060, Version 1.0, Leider Capital, June 27, 2026. Lens URI: lens://constitution/ti-060. Canonical URL: https://lensanalysis.com/constitution/ti-060.