References Tab Content Plan
Version: 1.0Status: Draft
Date: 2025-10-10
Target Phase: P2 (References Tab Implementation)
Table of Contents
- Overview
- Section 1: ISO 31000 Risk Management Principles
- Section 2: Risk Quantification Principles (EAL)
- Section 3: NPV & Discounting Policy (0% Fixed)
- Section 4: Qualitative Valuation Approaches
- Section 5: Worked Example Walkthrough
- Section 6: Glossary of Terms
- Section 7: Further Reading & Resources
- UI/UX Considerations
1. Overview
1.1 Purpose
This content plan defines the structure and content for the References Tab, which provides transparency into the methodological foundations of the NGO SRM ROI Calculator. The References Tab enables users to:- Understand the standards and formulas underlying the calculator (ISO 31000, Expected Annual Loss consistent with FAIR/NIST)
- Access detailed guidance on non-discounted valuation rationale and qualitative valuation
- Review a worked example walkthrough
- Look up technical terms in a comprehensive glossary
- Explore further reading for deeper understanding
1.2 Content Organization
The References Tab is organized into seven sections:- ISO 31000 Risk Management Principles (summary + link)
- Risk Quantification Principles (EAL) (overview with links to FAIR/NIST resources)
- NPV & Discounting Policy (0% Fixed) (rationale and references for 0% in humanitarian context)
- Qualitative Valuation Approaches (shadow pricing, contingent valuation references)
- Worked Example Walkthrough (interactive or static, mirrors Methods Note example)
- Glossary of Terms (ARO, SLE, EAL, NPV, Payback Period, etc.)
- Further Reading & Resources (academic papers, practitioner guides)
1.3 Accessibility
All content will meet WCAG 2.1 AA standards:- Plain language suitable for NGO practitioners
- Hierarchical structure with clear headings
- Screen reader compatibility
- High-contrast color scheme
2. Section 1: ISO 31000 Risk Management Principles
2.1 Section Overview
Title: “ISO 31000: Risk Management Principles” Purpose: Introduce users to the ISO 31000 standard, which underpins the calculator’s risk assessment methodology.2.2 Content
What is ISO 31000?
What is ISO 31000?
What is ISO 31000?
ISO 31000:2018 is the international standard for risk management, providing principles, framework, and process for managing risk systematically and transparently. Key Principles:
- Integrated: Risk management is part of all organizational activities
- Structured and comprehensive: Systematic, structured approach contributes to consistent and comparable results
- Customized: Risk management framework and process are customized to the organization’s context
- Evidence-based: Best available information informs risk assessment and decision-making
How Does ISO 31000 Apply to This Calculator?
How Does ISO 31000 Apply to This Calculator?
How Does ISO 31000 Apply to This Calculator?
The calculator implements ISO 31000 principles through:Example: A vehicle theft incident with ARO=0.15 (15% annual probability) and SLE=5,250 (expected annual loss). This quantification enables evidence-based decisions about whether to invest in vehicle security (e.g., GPS tracking, secure parking).
- Risk Identification: Users identify security incidents (threats and vulnerabilities)
- Risk Analysis: ARO (frequency) and SLE (magnitude) quantify likelihood and impact
- Risk Evaluation: EAL (Expected Annual Loss) expresses total risk exposure
- Risk Treatment: Costs represent risk mitigation investments; ROI evaluates treatment effectiveness
Where to Learn More
Where to Learn More
Where to Learn More
Full Standard: ISO 31000:2018 - Risk management — Guidelines
Website: https://www.iso.org/iso-31000-risk-management.html
Summary Document: ISO 31000 Overview (PDF) Recommended Reading:
- Purdy, G. (2010). “ISO 31000:2009—Setting a New Standard for Risk Management.” Risk Analysis, 30(6), 881-886.
- Leitch, M. (2010). “ISO 31000:2009—The new international standard on risk management.” Risk Analysis, 30(6), 887-892.
3. Section 2: Risk Quantification Principles (EAL)
3.1 Section Overview
Title: “Risk Quantification Principles (Expected Annual Loss)” Purpose: Explain how the Expected Annual Loss (EAL) formula underpins the calculator’s quantitative risk analysis, and clarify how this approach aligns with—but does not fully implement—frameworks like FAIR and NIST RMF.3.2 Content
What Are Risk Quantification Principles?
What Are Risk Quantification Principles?
What Are Risk Quantification Principles?
Quantitative risk analysis separates the frequency of loss events from their magnitude. The Expected Annual Loss (EAL) formula captures this by multiplying how often an incident occurs (Annualized Rate of Occurrence) by how costly it is when it happens (Single Loss Expectancy). This structure is common across enterprise risk methodologies, including FAIR, NIST Risk Management Framework, and ISO-aligned practices.
How Do These Principles Apply to This Calculator?
How Do These Principles Apply to This Calculator?
How Do These Principles Apply to This Calculator?
The calculator adopts standard risk quantification terminology:Important: The calculator uses the EAL formula consistent with FAIR and similar frameworks but does not implement FAIR’s full methodology (e.g., threat/vulnerability decomposition, probability distributions, Monte Carlo simulation). This keeps the approach accessible for NGO physical and cyber security contexts while remaining mathematically sound. Example: A ransomware attack with LEF/ARO=0.20 (20% annual probability, or once every 5 years) and LM/SLE=15,000.
FAIR Term Calculator Equivalent Definition Loss Event Frequency (LEF) Annualized Rate of Occurrence (ARO) Expected number of times an incident occurs in a year (ARO ≥ 0; values > 1 for high-frequency events) Loss Magnitude (LM) Single Loss Expectancy (SLE) Cost in dollars if the incident occurs once Loss Expectancy Expected Annual Loss (EAL) ARO × SLE = Average annual financial impact
Where to Learn More
Where to Learn More
Where to Learn More
Risk Quantification Resources:Free Resources: Recommended Reading:
- FAIR Institute: https://www.fairinstitute.org/
- NIST Risk Management Framework: https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/risk-management
- Freund, J., & Jones, J. (2014). Measuring and Managing Information Risk: A FAIR Approach. Butterworth-Heinemann.
- Jones, J. A. (2005). An Introduction to Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR). Norwich University.
- Stoneburner, G., Goguen, A., & Feringa, A. (2002). Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems (NIST SP 800-30).
4. Section 3: NPV & Discounting Policy (0% Fixed)
4.1 Section Overview
Title: “Net Present Value (NPV) and 0% Discounting Policy” Purpose: Document that discounting is fixed at 0% in this tool for humanitarian transparency; explain implications for NPV.4.2 Content
What is Net Present Value (NPV)?
Net Present Value (NPV) converts multi-year costs into a single present-value figure, accounting for the time value of money: a dollar today is worth more than a dollar next year. Formula:NPV = Σ (Cost_t / (1 + r)^(t-1))for all periods t Where:Policy in this tool: Discounting is fixed at 0% for humanitarian transparency; discount factors are 1.0 and NPV equals the simple sum across periods.
- Cost_t: Cost in period t
- t: Time period (1, 2, 3, …)
What is a Discount Rate?
In finance, the discount rate converts future cash flows to present value. In this calculator, we intentionally fix the discount rate at 0% to avoid devaluing future humanitarian outcomes and to improve transparency.
Discounting Policy and Sources
We fix r = 0% in this tool. See Methods Note Sections 3.2 and 6.3 for rationale and references (including World Bank 2023 discussions on 0% for development/sustainability contexts).
Sensitivity Considerations
Discount rate sensitivity is not applicable here (r = 0% fixed). Focus sensitivity on parameters with substantive uncertainty (risk reduction effectiveness, proxy values), per Methods Note Section 5.3.1.
5. Section 4: Qualitative Valuation Approaches
5.1 Section Overview
Title: “Valuing Non-Financial Benefits: Qualitative Impact Index” Purpose: Summarise the Stage 1 Qualitative Impact Index workflow: anchor-based scoring, short evidence notes, and optional weight adjustments.5.2 Content
Why Track Qualitative Benefits?
Security investments produce both quantitative (risk reduction) and qualitative (access, continuity, acceptance, wellbeing) benefits. Quantitative benefits flow straight into the ROI calculation via EAL reduction. Qualitative benefits are captured through a structured scorecard so they can be reported consistently alongside financial metrics. Qualitative Factors:
- Access to Environment (AE): Ability to operate in insecure areas
- Operational Continuity (OC): Reduced disruptions and suspensions
- Community Acceptance (CA): Improved local perceptions and relationships
- Staff Wellbeing (SW): Reduced stress, improved morale, retention
Stage 1 Qualitative Impact Workflow
The Stage 1 workflow keeps the process lightweight:The calculator reports a single Qualitative Impact Index (QII) on a 0–5 scale. No confidence tiers or monetisation steps are used in Stage 1.
- Select anchors (0–5): Choose the anchor that best reflects observable change in each dimension. Anchor descriptions focus on directional change and indicative thresholds.
- Record a short evidence note: Capture one or two sentences citing the data or observation that informed the score.
- Optional weight tweaks: Dimensions default to equal weighting (0.25 each). Adjustments are rare and should only reflect clear stakeholder priorities or programme context.
Reporting the Qualitative Impact Index
Reminder: Confidence tiers, adjusted QII figures, and monetisation/proxy tables were retired from the Stage 1 methodology.
- Primary outputs: Weighted QII score and the dimension-level notes.
- Narrative: Highlight what drove the strongest gains and where further work is needed.
- Documentation: Store anchor selections, weights (if adjusted), and evidence notes in the export pack for auditability.
6. Section 5: Worked Example Walkthrough
6.1 Section Overview
Title: “Step-by-Step ROI Calculation: Worked Example” Purpose: Provide an interactive or static walkthrough of a complete ROI calculation using the Baseline synthetic scenario.6.2 Content (Mirrors Methods Note Section 7)
Scenario: Baseline Mid-Sized NGO Operations
Context: Mid-sized humanitarian NGO in moderate-risk environment investing in comprehensive security program over 3 years.1
Step 1: Calculate Expected Annual Loss (EAL)
Step 1: Calculate Expected Annual Loss (EAL)
Total EAL: $49,250
| Incident Type | ARO | SLE ($) | EAL ($) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data Breach (Phishing) | 0.30 | 45,000 | 13,500 |
| Vehicle Theft | 0.15 | 35,000 | 5,250 |
| Office Burglary | 0.25 | 12,000 | 3,000 |
| Staff Kidnapping | 0.05 | 250,000 | 12,500 |
| Ransomware Attack | 0.20 | 75,000 | 15,000 |
2
3
Step 2: Calculate NPV of Costs
Step 2: Calculate NPV of Costs (r = 0%)
Total NPV: $166,000.00
| Period | Costs ($) | Discount Factor | NPV ($) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 90,000 | 1.0000 | 90,000.00 |
| 2 | 37,000 | 1.0000 | 37,000.00 |
| 3 | 39,000 | 1.0000 | 39,000.00 |
4
5
Step 3: Qualitative Impact Assessment
Step 3: Qualitative Impact Assessment (QII)Equal weights (0.25 each) applied in the Qualitative Impact Assessment.
Qualitative Impact Index (QII): Σ(weight × score) = 3.00 / 5.0
| Dimension | Score | Weighted Contribution | Evidence Note (summary) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AE | 4 | 1.00 | Mission tracker shows +18% site coverage |
| OC | 3 | 0.75 | Downtime reduced from 21 to 16 days |
| CA | 3 | 0.75 | Joint community forums restarted Q3 |
| SW | 2 | 0.50 | Pulse survey up slightly; retention flat |
6
7
Step 4: Financial Benefits (Discounted EAL)
Step 4: Financial Benefits (Discounted EAL)With discount rate fixed at 0 %, financial benefits equal the annual EAL reduction (Year 1–3):
Total benefits (0% discount) = 49,250 + 147,750.00**
Total benefits (0% discount) = 49,250 + 147,750.00**
8
9
Step 5: Financial ROI
Step 5: Financial ROIROI_financial = ((Benefits_financial − Costs) / Costs) × 100
= ((166,000.00) / $166,000.00) × 100
= −10.99%
= ((166,000.00) / $166,000.00) × 100
= −10.99%
10
11
Step 6: Calculate Payback Period
Step 6: Calculate Payback Period
Payback Period: N/A (financial benefits alone do not recover costs within 3 years)
| Year | Cumulative Costs ($) | Financial Benefits ($) | Recovered? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 90,000 | 49,250.00 | No |
| 2 | 127,000 | 98,500.00 | No |
| 3 | 166,000 | 147,750.00 | No |
Summary:
| Metric | Value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| EAL | $49,250 | Average annual risk without intervention |
| NPV | $166,000.00 | Present value of 3-year security investment |
| Qualitative Impact Index (QII) | 3.00 | Strong qualitative improvement backed by documented anchors |
| Financial ROI | −10.99% | Quantified risk reduction alone does not recover costs |
| Payback Period | N/A | Financial benefits alone do not recover costs in 3 years |
7. Section 6: Glossary of Terms
7.1 Section Overview
Title: “Glossary: Key Terms and Definitions” Purpose: Provide quick-reference definitions for all technical terms used in the calculator. This section also stores the UI Terminology Matrix used to guide plain-language implementation across the application.7.2 UI Terminology Matrix (Plain-Language Implementation)
This table maps technical terms to plain-language alternatives and defines where tooltips/glossary links should appear. It guides the UI Plain-Language Initiative (see documentation polishing tasks in.specify/memory/backlog.md).
| Location | Current Label/Text | Technical Term | Plain Language Draft | Tooltip Needed? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AssumptionsStep.tsx:63 | ”Setup” | Setup/Assumptions | ”Setup” (retained) | No | ✅ Approved |
| AssumptionsStep.tsx:77 | ”Time Horizon” | Time Horizon | ”Planning period” | Yes (explain 1-10 years) | 📋 Pending |
| AssumptionsStep.tsx:80 | ”Discounting is fixed at 0%“ | Discount Rate | ”Fixed at 0% for transparency” | Yes (link to Methods Note) | 📋 Pending |
| AssumptionsStep.tsx:131 | ”Organization Context” | Context | ”Organization details (optional)“ | Yes (explain why needed) | 📋 Pending |
| AssumptionsStep.tsx:164 | ”Annual Operating Budget” | Annual Operating Budget | ”Your organization’s yearly budget” | Yes (helps estimate costs) | 📋 Pending |
| AssumptionsStep.tsx:178 | ”Annual Security Budget” | Annual Security Budget | ”Current security spending per year” | Yes (for comparison) | 📋 Pending |
| AssumptionsStep.tsx:197 | ”Staff Count (FTE)“ | FTE | ”Number of full-time staff” | Yes (explain FTE) | 📋 Pending |
| AssumptionsStep.tsx:226 | ”Programme Delivery Days/Year” | Programme Delivery Days | ”Active work days per year” | Yes (excludes weekends/holidays) | 📋 Pending |
| IncidentsStep.tsx:191 | ”Security Incidents” | Incidents | ”Security risks and events” | No | 📋 Pending |
| IncidentsStep.tsx:193 | ARO | ARO | ”How often per year” | Yes (link to glossary) | 📋 Pending |
| IncidentsStep.tsx:193 | SLE | SLE | ”Cost per event” | Yes (link to glossary) | 📋 Pending |
| IncidentsStep.tsx:233 | ”Incident Type *“ | Incident Type | ”Type of security risk” | No | 📋 Pending |
| IncidentsStep.tsx:236 | ARO header | ARO | ”Expected frequency” | Yes (dropdown presets) | 📋 Pending |
| IncidentsStep.tsx:241 | SLE header | SLE | ”Cost if it happens” | Yes (budget-relative) | 📋 Pending |
| IncidentsStep.tsx:494 | ”Annual Rate of Occurrence (ARO)“ | ARO | ”How often this happens each year” | Yes | 📋 Pending |
| IncidentsStep.tsx:509 | ”Single Loss Expectancy (SLE)“ | SLE | ”What it costs when it happens” | Yes | 📋 Pending |
| CostsStep.tsx:151 | ”Security Costs” | Costs | ”Security investment costs” | No | 📋 Pending |
| CostsStep.tsx:193 | ”Category *“ | Category | ”What the money is for” | No | 📋 Pending |
| CostsStep.tsx:197 | CapEx/OpEx | CapEx/OpEx | ”One-time or recurring” | Yes (explain difference) | 📋 Pending |
| CostsStep.tsx:272 | FinancialTerms.OpEx | OpEx | ”Ongoing costs” | Yes (from term registry) | 📋 Pending |
| CostsStep.tsx:273 | FinancialTerms.CapEx | CapEx | ”One-time investments” | Yes (from term registry) | 📋 Pending |
| CostsStep.tsx:302 | ”Period” | Period | ”Which year” | Yes (1 to time horizon) | 📋 Pending |
| QualitativeStep.tsx:69 | ”Access to Environment (AE)“ | AE | ”Ability to reach areas” | Yes (expand definition) | 📋 Pending |
| QualitativeStep.tsx:76 | ”Operational Continuity (OC)“ | OC | ”Keeping programs running” | Yes (expand definition) | 📋 Pending |
| QualitativeStep.tsx:83 | ”Community Acceptance (CA)“ | CA | ”Local relationships” | Yes (expand definition) | 📋 Pending |
| QualitativeStep.tsx:90 | ”Staff Wellbeing (SW)“ | SW | ”Staff safety and morale” | Yes (expand definition) | 📋 Pending |
| QualitativeStep.tsx:325 | ”How to use this step” | Instructions | Keep plain | No | ✅ Approved |
| QualitativeStep.tsx:334 | ”Assessment Progress” | Progress | Keep plain | No | ✅ Approved |
| QualitativeStep.tsx:542 | ”Qualitative Impact Index (preview)“ | QII | ”Overall qualitative score (preview)“ | Yes (explain 0-5 scale) | 📋 Pending |
| ResultsStep (financial metrics) | “Expected Annual Loss” | EAL | ”Average yearly risk cost” | Yes (without intervention) | 📋 Pending |
| ResultsStep (financial metrics) | “Net Present Value” | NPV | ”Total investment value” | Yes (r=0%, sum of costs) | 📋 Pending |
| ResultsStep (financial metrics) | “Return on Investment” | ROI | ”Value returned per dollar spent” | Yes (percentage formula) | 📋 Pending |
| ResultsStep (financial metrics) | “Payback Period” | Payback Period | ”Years to break even” | Yes (may be N/A) | 📋 Pending |
| ResultsStep (qualitative) | “Qualitative Impact Index” | QII | ”Overall qualitative improvement” | Yes (0-5 scale, weighted) | 📋 Pending |
| Export headers (PDF/Excel) | All metric labels | Various | Add plain language + (technical term) | Yes (in parentheses) | 📋 Pending |
| Review cards | Metric summaries | Various | Plain language with tooltip | Yes (technical term in tooltip) | 📋 Pending |
- ✅ Approved: Plain language approved and implemented
- 📋 Pending: Awaiting implementation in Phase 2-4 of the UI plan
- 🔄 In Progress: Currently being updated
- All plain-language labels should appear by default in the UI
- Technical terms surface via tooltips (HintTooltip/TermHoverCard) or glossary drawer
- Tooltip content should cite this glossary for consistency
- Localisation: All plain-language strings must be translation-ready (no idioms, paired with icons where helpful)
7.3 Content
A
A
A
Annualized Rate of Occurrence (ARO) Expected number of times an incident occurs in a year. ARO ≥ 0; values can be less than 1 (infrequent events) or greater than 1 (high-frequency events). Example: ARO = 0.25 means “expected once every 4 years.” ARO = 12 means “monthly occurrence (12 times per year).”AssumptionsTemporal parameters used in calculations, including time horizon (discounting fixed at 0%), and (when enabled) social value proxies.
C
C
C
CAPEX (Capital Expenditure)One-time asset purchases with multi-year lifespans (e.g., vehicles, equipment, facility upgrades).Cost
Security risk management investment cost incurred in a specific period.
D
D
D
Discount RateSet to 0% in this calculator to avoid devaluing future humanitarian outcomes and improve transparency. Standard finance uses positive rates; we document the rationale in Methods Note Sections 3.2 and 6.3.
E
E
E
Expected Annual Loss (EAL)Average annual financial impact of security incidents over time, calculated as
Σ (ARO × SLE) for all incidents.Example: EAL = 49,250 from identified risks.”
F
F
F
FAIR Framework (reference) Factor Analysis of Information Risk – a quantitative risk analysis methodology for information security. The calculator references FAIR for the Expected Annual Loss formula but does not implement the full FAIR framework.I
I
I
IncidentSecurity incident type with expected frequency (ARO) and financial impact (SLE).ISO 31000
International standard for risk management, providing principles, framework, and process for managing risk systematically.
N
N
N
Net Present Value (NPV)Present value of multi-year costs; in this tool with r = 0%, discount factors are 1.0 and NPV equals the simple sum across periods.
Example: NPV = 90k, 39k).
O
O
O
OPEX (Operating Expenditure)Recurring operational costs, typically annual (e.g., salaries, training, maintenance).
P
P
P
Payback PeriodTime (in years) required for cumulative benefits to equal or exceed cumulative costs.
Note: Uses discounted benefits for conservative estimate.Parameter Delta
Qualitative valuation method that adjusts quantitative parameters (ARO, SLE) based on qualitative scores.
Q
Q
Q
Qualitative BenefitsNon-financial improvements from security investments (access, continuity, acceptance, wellbeing).Qualitative Model
Framework for capturing qualitative benefits using weighted scoring (AE, OC, CA, SW).
R
R
R
Return on Investment (ROI)Financial return as a percentage of investment cost, calculated as
((Benefits - Costs) / Costs) × 100.Example: ROI = 25% means “for every 0.25.” A negative ROI indicates quantified benefits do not fully offset costs within the analysis period.
S
S
S
ScenarioComplete risk analysis case bundling incidents, costs, assumptions, and qualitative scores.Shadow Price / Proxy Value
Stakeholder-approved financial proxy used when monetising qualitative improvements (e.g., value per programme day, cost of downtime avoided).
Guidance: Only apply when data sources, approvals, and sensitivity ranges are documented.Single Loss Expectancy (SLE)
Expected cost in dollars if an incident occurs once.
Example: SLE = $45,000 for a data breach (IT recovery + regulatory fines + reputation damage).
T
T
T
Time HorizonNumber of years over which costs and benefits are evaluated.
Recommended range for NGOs: 3 to 5 years.
8. Section 7: Further Reading & Resources
8.1 Section Overview
Title: “Further Reading: Academic Papers and Practitioner Guides” Purpose: Curate high-quality resources for users seeking deeper understanding.8.2 Content
Risk Management Standards
ISO 31000:2018 - Risk Management GuidelinesInternational Organization for Standardization (2018). ISO 31000:2018 - Risk management — Guidelines.
https://www.iso.org/iso-31000-risk-management.html Risk Quantification Resources (EAL)
FAIR Institute (2020). Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR) — Introduction to Risk Quantification.
https://www.fairinstitute.org/
Note: Referenced for the Expected Annual Loss formula; the calculator does not implement the full FAIR framework. Recommended Articles:
- Purdy, G. (2010). “ISO 31000:2009—Setting a New Standard for Risk Management.” Risk Analysis, 30(6), 881-886.
- Freund, J., & Jones, J. (2014). Measuring and Managing Information Risk: A FAIR Approach. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Financial Analysis Methods
Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2019)Principles of Corporate Finance (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
[Standard reference for NPV and capital budgeting] World Bank (2023)
Guidance discussions on using 0% discount rates in sustainability/development contexts.
[Cited in Methods Note Sections 3.2 and 6.3]
Qualitative Valuation
Freeman, A. M., Herriges, J. A., & Kling, C. L. (2014)The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods (3rd ed.). RFF Press.
[Shadow pricing and stated preference methodologies] Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989)
Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future.
[Contingent valuation for non-market goods]
NGO Security Risk Management
Global Interagency Security Forum (GISF). (2021)Security Risk Management: NGO Approach.
https://gisf.ngo/ Stoddard, A., Harmer, A., & DiDomenico, V. (2009)
Providing Aid in Insecure Environments: 2009 Update. Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI.
https://www.odi.org/ EISF (European Interagency Security Forum)
Incident Tracking and Analysis: Best Practices for NGOs.
https://www.eisf.eu/
Project-Specific Documentation
Methods Notespecs/001-develop-a-user/methods-note.md[Comprehensive methodological framework for all calculation formulas] Data Schema & Codebook
specs/001-develop-a-user/data-schema.md[Authoritative data reference for all entities, fields, and validation rules] Pilot Pack & Data Readiness Guide
specs/001-develop-a-user/pilot-pack.md[Step-by-step guidance for NGO data preparation and pilot facilitation] Validation Report
specs/002-close-rfq-driven/validation/validation-report.md[Verification of formula-implementation alignment and edge case testing]
9. UI/UX Considerations
9.1 Content Presentation
Layout:- Sidebar Navigation: Jump links to each section (ISO 31000, Risk Quantification, NPV, Qualitative, etc.)
- Collapsible Sections: Expand/collapse sections for easier navigation
- Search Functionality: Full-text search across all reference content
- Print/Export: “Export References as PDF” button for offline access
- WCAG 2.1 AA Compliance: High-contrast text, keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility
- Plain Language: Avoid jargon where possible; define technical terms on first use
- Visual Aids: Diagrams for NPV calculation, qualitative valuation flow charts
9.2 Interactive Elements
Worked Example:- Interactive Calculator (Optional): Users can adjust inputs in worked example and see live updates
- Static Walkthrough (Minimum): Step-by-step presentation with explanatory text and tables
- Alphabetical Index: Quick navigation to terms by letter
- In-Line Definitions: Hover tooltips for glossary terms throughout the References tab
- Clearly Marked: External links open in new tab with visual indicator (↗)
- Accessible Alternatives: Provide alternative access for paywalled academic papers (e.g., link to Google Scholar, ResearchGate)
9.3 Performance
Load Time: less than 3s for full References tab content (optimize with lazy loading for sections) Search Performance: less than 500ms for full-text search resultsDocument Control
Version: 1.0Status: Draft
Date: 2025-10-10
Next Review: Upon P2 implementation kickoff Change Log:
| Date | Version | Changes | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-10-10 | 1.0 | Initial draft - References tab content plan for P2 | Shayan Seyedi |
End of References Tab Content Plan For calculation methodologies, see the Methods Note. For data preparation, see the Pilot Pack & Data Readiness Guide.