Attribution
When a change is tracked, credit flows upward through the hierarchy — from the team that helped, to the project, to the strategy, to the issue space.
The Contribution Slider
When a user's attribute changes, they're prompted to distribute credit:
The "Other" category captures non-platform factors — ensuring honesty about what we can't track.
How Attribution Flows Up
Attribution aggregates from the most granular level (teams) up to the broadest (issue spaces):
Total Tide vs. total Boats. Comparative efficacy across strategies.
Sum of all project contributions. Shows which approaches work.
Combined attribution of its teams.
Most granular level. Individual teams claim contribution to specific outcomes.
Geographic Cascade
Stories are not duplicated — each level queries the same stories with geographic filters:
All tracked changes worldwide
All users/entities with UK address
All users/entities with London address
Most local level. Individual users and entities.
A user in Hackney automatically counts in London, UK, and Global issue spaces.
Attribution Principles
Honest Uncertainty
Claim only what you can reasonably defend
Shared Credit
Multiple actors can contribute to the same outcome
Over-claiming Visible
When Boats exceed Tide, it signals over-attribution
Learning Focus
The goal is insight for improvement, not credit-taking
Comparative Efficacy
Once attribution data accumulates, engage.re enables comparison of approaches:
- Which strategies produce the most impact?
- Which projects over-claim vs. under-claim?
- Where are the gaps between Tide and Boats?
- What patterns emerge across different issue areas?
This is the core value proposition: turning fragmented impact claims into actionable intelligence about what actually works.