Contribute

Contribute

NEI is an open, community-governed framework. Changes are introduced through formal proposals. Anyone can submit a proposal; decisions are made transparently through a documented governance process.

Ways to contribute

• Propose a new indicator — identify an organizational signal not yet in the framework
• Refine indicator criteria — improve evidence criteria to make them more auditable
• Add citations — contribute supporting or dissenting research citations
• Propose taxonomy changes — suggest new domains or reclassify indicators
• Improve sector relevance mappings — challenge a relevance assessment or propose a new sector
• Improve documentation — clarify methodology, evidence source definitions, or governance

The proposal process

All substantive changes to indicators, versions, or taxonomy are introduced via a Proposal (NDP).

Step 1 — Open an issue (optional but encouraged)

Before writing a full proposal, open an issue to describe the change you are considering. This allows discussion before investment in a full write-up.

Label your issue: new-indicator, modify-indicator, taxonomy-change, or documentation.

Step 2 — Write a proposal

Copy the proposal template from proposals/NDP-template.md in the NEI repository.

Assign a sequential proposal ID: NDP-xxxxx (e.g., NDP-00001).

Save your file as proposals/NDP-xxxxx.md.

Step 3 — Generate an indicator ID (if proposing a new indicator)

Indicator IDs are generated deterministically from a normalized name. Use the reference tool:

python tools/id_generation.py "your normalized indicator name"

Example output:

Indicator ID:    NDI-2cdbgj
Normalized name: administrative processes simplified expense reporting

Include the generated ID in your proposal.

Step 4 — Submit a pull request

Open a pull request that includes:

• Your proposal file: proposals/NDP-xxxxx.md
• Any new or modified indicator files: indicators/concepts/ or indicators/versions/
• Any taxonomy changes: taxonomy/nodes/ or taxonomy/edges/

PR title format: [NDP-xxxxx] Short description of change

Step 5 — Review and lifecycle

Stage	Meaning
Proposed	PR open, under discussion
Candidate	Accepted in principle, undergoing final review
Standard	Merged and included in a numbered release

Quality bar

Titles: Short noun phrases, not imperatives. Standards-like.

Descriptions: 3–6 lines. Explain what is observable and why it matters specifically to neurodivergent enablement.

Criteria: Auditable. Include concrete examples of what a reviewer would look for. Avoid vague language.

Evidence sources: Each criterion must map to one or more specific source types from the approved list.

Citations: At least one supporting citation and at least one dissenting citation per indicator version.

What we are looking for right now

The candidate release (NDR-0.1.0C-NDP-seed) includes 30 indicators across 15 domains. We are currently seeking feedback on:

1. Are the evidence criteria auditable? Can a researcher with access only to public sources actually apply the inferred criteria?
2. Are important domains missing? Are there significant areas of organizational life that affect neurodivergent workers that are not yet covered?
3. Are any indicators too broad or too narrow? Do any need to be split or merged?
4. Are the dissenting citations fair? We aim to represent the evidence honestly, including arguments that complicate the framework.
5. Communication Modality & Processing and Cognitive Load & Work Structuring are defined as domains but have no indicators yet. What should go there?

Sector Relevance contributions

Sector Relevance mappings are a draft layer open to contributor review. You can propose:

• A challenge to an existing relevance level or rationale
• An additional sector not yet covered
• A new classification system (e.g. NAICS, UK SIC) alongside the existing NACE mappings

Sector relevance proposal template

Use the following fields when proposing a change to sector relevance:

Classification system:       NACE-Rev2 (or other)
Classification version:      Rev.2 (or other)
Sector code:                 (e.g. 62)
Sector label:                (e.g. Computer programming, consultancy and related activities)
Indicator concept ID:        NDI-xxxxxx
Proposed relevance level:    Core | High | Moderate | Context-specific | Low
Current relevance level:     (if changing an existing mapping, or "New" if adding)
Rationale:                   Why this relevance level is appropriate for this sector
Evidence or citations:       Any research, practitioner literature, or empirical basis
Practitioner basis:          Your sector experience or expertise, if relevant
Caveats:                     Any sub-sector variation or contextual limitations

Open an issue in the NEI repository labelled sector-relevance to start a discussion before submitting a formal proposal.

Sector relevance proposals follow the same NDP process as indicator proposals. Assign a sequential NDP ID and save the file as proposals/NDP-xxxxx.md.

---

Code of conduct

Discussions should be evidence-oriented and respectful. We welcome critique of the framework — including disagreement with specific criteria, evidence requirements, or design decisions. What we do not welcome is dismissiveness toward the lived experience of neurodivergent workers.