Every comparative Report we publish carries a methodological appendix. The appendix is a working document, not a final word; it is the part of the Report most likely to evolve as we learn from each project.
For the recent Report, the methodological appendix takes up three questions in particular: how we selected the eight jurisdictions in the sample; how we sourced primary statutory and judicial materials; and how we verified the findings against the work of practitioner networks in each jurisdiction.
Two methodological choices are worth noting beyond the appendix itself. First, we excluded jurisdictions where adequate documentation was not available, even where their inclusion would have been substantively useful. We chose to underclaim rather than overclaim. Second, we ran the findings past a small group of practitioners in each jurisdiction prior to publication. The practitioner review surfaced issues we would not have identified ourselves.
The methodology leaves questions open. We name them in the appendix. Future work in this area will, we hope, address them.