[Download Full Document {PDF)]
Deep Dive | Why GDP is blind to life
Debate | Life-coherence dashboards versus single-score metrics
Critique | Hardwiring Safeguards into Peace Dashboards
Explainer | Indicators of Peace
Cinematic | Life-Coherent Peace: Designing the Non-Reductionist Dashboard
Please click on infographic to enlarge
Executive Summary
Life-Coherent Peace requires evaluation. Without indicators, it risks remaining a powerful but abstract moral vocabulary. Yet once life-coherence is translated into indicators, another danger arises: the living, relational, ecological, and cultural complexity of peace may be reduced to what institutions can most easily count. The problem is not measurement itself. The problem is reductionist measurement.
The Life-Coherent Peace framework argues that peace must be assessed by whether institutions, economies, technologies, ecologies, and cultures enable or disable life-capacity. It proposes the Life-Coherence Test and the Life-Coherence Arbitration Protocol as dialogical tools for evaluating policies and institutions, not as mechanical checklists or expert command instruments (Sahely, 2026a). The NotebookLM debate transcript identified the central measurement danger: under administrative pressure, institutions may default to what is easiest to count—hospital beds, gallons of water, budget lines—while ignoring relational legitimacy, felt being, cultural continuity, and ecological thresholds.
This paper responds by designing a Life-Coherence Dashboard rather than a Life-Coherence Score. A score compresses. A dashboard discloses. A score ranks. A dashboard reveals patterns, thresholds, distributional burdens, narratives, and repair obligations. A score invites technocratic control. A dashboard, if properly designed, can support participatory judgment.
The dashboard proposed here has ten domains:
- Basic life necessities
- Health and embodied viability
- Thought, education, and sense-making
- Felt being and psychosocial security
- Action, agency, and participation
- Relational legitimacy and non-domination
- Civil commons and universal access
- Ecological life-ground
- Cultural-linguistic worlds
- Value sequence and institutional accountability
The paper also proposes five indicator types:
- Signal indicators
- Threshold indicators
- Distribution indicators
- Narrative indicators
- Repair indicators
The central claim is:
Life-Coherent Peace is not measured by compressing life into a single number, but by disclosing, with affected communities, whether the conditions of thought, felt being, action, relation, culture, and ecological viability are being enabled, disabled, repaired, or placed at irreversible risk.
Ten Domains of the Life-Coherence Dashboard
Please scroll to the right to see the right columns| Domain Name | Core Question | Signal Indicators | Threshold Indicators | Distribution Indicators | Narrative Indicators | Repair Indicators | Red-Line Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basic life necessities | Are the non-substitutable means of life secured for all? | Water access; food security; housing security; sanitation access; energy security; basic healthcare access; safe transport; protection from violence; access to care. | Households without safe water; severe food insecurity; unsheltered homelessness; unsafe sanitation; avoidable deaths from exposure; acute malnutrition; preventable infectious disease outbreaks. | Access by income, geography, gender, disability, ethnicity, migration status, Indigenous status, age, and informal settlement status. | Experiences of insecurity, shame, fear, dignity, waiting, exclusion, and informal coping. | Emergency access guarantees; lifeline services; universal baseline provision; grievance resolution; community oversight; reinvestment into infrastructure. | Is anyone deprived of a condition without which bodily viability is seriously threatened? |
| Health and embodied viability | Are institutions conserving embodied viability, or merely treating breakdown after harm occurs? | Mortality; morbidity; chronic disease; maternal health; child development; disability access; occupational injury; environmental health; mental health service access. | Preventable mortality; disease outbreaks; severe maternal or infant risk; collapse of primary care; unsafe work environments; toxic exposure; heat-related mortality. | Health outcomes by neighbourhood, class, race, gender, disability, occupation, and ecological exposure. | Experiences of fear, exhaustion, pain, humiliation, abandonment, and trust or distrust in care systems. | Prevention investments; primary care access; trauma-informed services; occupational protections; environmental remediation; community health workers. | Are preventable disease, trauma, disability, or death being produced by social arrangements? |
| Thought, education, and sense-making | Are capacities for thought, learning, imagination, and discernment being expanded or disabled? | Literacy; school access; school completion; language access; civic learning; critical thinking opportunities; digital access; media literacy; library access. | Systematic exclusion from education; censorship; epistemic deprivation; disinformation saturation; language suppression; collapse of public knowledge systems. | Educational opportunity by geography, income, gender, disability, language, race, Indigenous status, migration status. | Student belonging; teacher testimony; cultural safety; intellectual curiosity; fear of speaking; language shame; epistemic dignity. | Inclusive curricula; community schools; language revitalization; public libraries; open knowledge; civic education; media accountability. | Are populations being kept ignorant, misinformed, excluded, or cognitively overloaded? |
| Felt being and psychosocial security | Are people able to feel safe, connected, valued, and emotionally viable? | Loneliness; mental distress; suicide rates; chronic stress; violence exposure; bullying; social trust; perceived safety; belonging. | Suicide clusters; mass trauma; chronic fear; severe social isolation; normalization of humiliation; institutional abuse. | Psychosocial burdens by age, gender, income, race, disability, migration status, caregiving role, and exposure to violence. | Stories of despair, grief, trust, shame, abandonment, hope, mutual care, and emotional exhaustion. | Community care networks; trauma-informed institutions; safe public spaces; social prescribing; peer support; grief support; restorative practices. | Is the system normalizing despair, humiliation, abandonment, or chronic fear? |
| Action, agency, and participation | Can affected people meaningfully shape the decisions that shape them? | Voting access; community participation; worker voice; disability access; mobility; legal empowerment; public consultation; grievance use; civic association. | Disenfranchisement; forced relocation; suppression of protest; legal exclusion; coercive dependency; inaccessible decision processes. | Participation by class, language, disability, age, gender, race, Indigenous status, migration status, and geography. | Experiences of being heard, ignored, patronized, tokenized, or empowered. | Participatory budgeting; community assemblies; worker councils; independent ombuds offices; legal aid; accessible participation processes. | Are people being treated as passive recipients, clients, consumers, or data points rather than agents? |
| Relational legitimacy and non-domination | Does the system recognize the legitimacy of those affected? | Discrimination complaints; policing practices; procedural fairness; Indigenous rights recognition; minority protection; migration status protections; gender justice; disability rights. | Criminalization of vulnerable groups; forced assimilation; discriminatory violence; indefinite detention; systematic humiliation; domination through service dependency. | Burden of coercion by class, race, gender, disability, Indigenous status, migration status, and political status. | Experiences of respect, humiliation, fear, legitimacy, voice, erasure, or recognition. | Anti-discrimination mechanisms; rights recognition; restorative justice; demilitarization; procedural dignity; independent complaint systems. | Is any group being humiliated, erased, criminalized, or treated as disposable? |
| Civil commons and universal access | Are shared life-support systems protected, accountable, and universally accessible? | Public water access; public health coverage; education access; libraries; parks; public knowledge; housing supports; care infrastructure; sanitation systems; digital commons. | Shutoffs of life-necessities; privatized exclusion; infrastructure collapse; corruption; underinvestment; loss of universal access. | Access and quality by neighbourhood, income, race, disability, Indigenous status, and rural/urban location. | Whether people experience institutions as life-supporting, humiliating, inaccessible, punitive, or trustworthy. | Public or cooperative governance; lifeline guarantees; transparent budgeting; community oversight; reinvestment; anti-corruption safeguards. | Has a universal means of life been converted into a revenue stream or exclusionary commodity? |
| Ecological life-ground | Are ecological systems being regenerated, maintained, or degraded? | Water quality; air quality; biodiversity; soil health; habitat continuity; carbon storage; flood regulation; pollution; climate resilience; ecological restoration. | Species extinction risk; watershed collapse; soil exhaustion; irreversible contamination; ecosystem regime shift; climate vulnerability. | Who lives near pollution; who benefits from extraction; who loses access to land, water, food, or climate security. | Community experiences of ecological loss, place attachment, mourning, stewardship, and responsibility. | Restoration funds; watershed governance; pollution remediation; habitat corridors; Indigenous stewardship; long-term ecological monitoring. | Are thresholds of irreversible ecological harm being approached or crossed? |
| Cultural-linguistic worlds | Are cultural worlds being recognized, renewed, and protected? | Language vitality; cultural education; sacred-site protection; intergenerational transmission; public narratives; media representation; historical memory; epistemic inclusion. | Language extinction; destruction of sacred sites; cultural erasure; forced assimilation; denial of historical memory; epistemic colonization. | Which cultures are recognized, funded, protected, represented, or excluded. | Oral histories; community testimony; ceremonial continuity; felt cultural dignity; experiences of erasure or renewal. | Language revitalization; land-back or co-governance arrangements; sacred-site protection; truth processes; cultural funding; community-led education. | Is any group being forced to translate its world into the dominant system’s categories in order to be heard? |
| Value sequence and institutional accountability | Does the institution subordinate money and administration to life, or life to money and administration? | Budget priorities; reinvestment; profit extraction; public accountability; grievance systems; corruption; transparency; repair obligations; public reasoning; democratic oversight. | Revenue extraction from life-necessities; austerity that disables life; corruption; institutional self-protection; regulatory capture; data manipulation. | Who pays, who profits, who is excluded, who decides, who bears risk, who receives repair. | Public trust; perceived legitimacy; experiences of bureaucracy; stories of abandonment, exploitation, or care. | Transparency reforms; participatory budgeting; audit systems; restitution; institutional redesign; anti-capture safeguards. | Is life-disablement being justified as efficiency, growth, fiscal discipline, innovation, or administrative necessity? |
