Best practices by industry
Not every workplace practice is equally urgent in every industry. The structural conditions, culture, and operational design of different industries create different risk profiles for neurodivergent employees.
A hospital, a software company, and a financial services firm all benefit from the same NEI practices — but the practices most commonly critical in each are different. This layer makes those differences explicit, to help organisations and practitioners focus their attention where it matters most.
Industries covered
Section titled “Industries covered”Five industries are currently mapped. More are in development.
| Industry | Key concerns |
|---|---|
| Technology and software | Open-plan noise, evaluation style bias, role ambiguity in agile teams |
| Financial services | Disclosure risk, compliance burden, presentation-style evaluation |
| Manufacturing | Role definition, supervisor continuity, disclosure in production environments |
| Education | Academic style bias, ambiguous role expectations, disclosure stigma |
| Healthcare | Clinical role clarity, disclosure and registration risk, sensory load |
View full industry applicability guide →
Relevance levels
Section titled “Relevance levels”Each mapped indicator is assigned one of five relevance levels:
| Level | What it means |
|---|---|
| Core | A primary concern in most organisations in this industry. Prioritise here. |
| High | Relevant to most organisations. Worth including in any assessment. |
| Moderate | Applicable in many contexts; importance depends on organisation type and size. |
| Context-specific | Relevant in some sub-industries or contexts but not universally. |
| Low | Less commonly a primary concern; may still apply in specific circumstances. |
Relevance labels describe likely applicability, not importance in absolute terms. A “Moderate” mapping does not mean the indicator is unimportant — it means it is less commonly a primary concern in this industry than a “Core” or “High” indicator.
What this layer is not
Section titled “What this layer is not”Not a scoring methodology. Applicability mappings do not define how to aggregate assessments into a score or ranking.
Not a definitive classification. Every NEI indicator is potentially relevant in any industry. These mappings describe sector-level tendencies, not organization-specific determinations.
Not separate from indicator definitions. Applicability mappings do not change what an indicator means — only where it commonly matters most.
Draft status
Section titled “Draft status”All mappings are provisional:
- Based on initial practitioner judgment, not empirical data
- Open for community review and challenge
- May change as contributor input and sector-specific evidence develops
- Should be treated as advisory guidance, not authoritative classification
Explore
Section titled “Explore”- Industry applicability guide — the draft mappings for each industry
- Methodology — how mappings are developed and how to interpret relevance levels
- Contribute — how to propose changes to industry mappings
For researchers and platform builders
Section titled “For researchers and platform builders”Industry applicability mappings use NACE Rev.2 (Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community, Revision 2) at Division level as the underlying classification system. NACE was chosen for its EU-wide adoption and compatibility with international equivalents (ISIC Rev.4, NAICS cross-walks).
Mappings target indicator concepts (e.g. NDI-2cdbgj), not specific indicator versions, so they remain valid across routine indicator updates.
Machine-readable data is available at stable URLs:
| File | Contents |
|---|---|
/data/sector-relevance.json | Full mappings — all industries, mapped indicators, rationale, status fields |
/data/sectors-mini.json | LLM-optimised — industries with aliases, summaries, and relevance groups |