Appendix H — Program Atlas

Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).

Read this chapter in the interactive reader, or download the full 601-page manifesto (PDF).

---

The People’s Model

Manifesto v2026

Volume III — Implementation Handbook

Appendix H — Program Atlas

Equity Beyond Access sector — sheets H.199–H.216 (v1.0)

Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).

Problem

Karnataka has multiple sector-level commissions (SC/ST, BC, Women, Minorities, PWD) but no cross-cutting body holding outcomes-equity accountability across sectors.

Program design

• Statutory State Equity Commission as cross-cut oversight.
• Annual State of Equity report.
• Authority to commission audits.
• Findings-to-remedy enforcement pathway.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Equity Commission (new statutory body)

Backup: Sector commissions (SC/ST, BC, Women, Minorities, PWD)

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹40-70 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Annual report + per-finding remedy evidence.

KPIs

• • Annual State of Equity report publication — baseline: (new); F: First report; B: Annual with quality; C: Continuous reference.
• • Audit recommendations closed within target — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.
• • Independent peer-review pass rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Political pressure on findings. Safeguard: Statutory independence; published interference attempts; whistleblower protection.
• • Risk: Sector-commission territorialism. Safeguard: Cross-cut mandate clearly defined; convergence protocol.
• • Risk: Recommendations symbolic without closure. Safeguard: Remedy-tracking; published closure rates.

Dependencies

• • Vol II Ch 18.
• • App H sheets H.180, H.200, H.215.

Problem

Karnataka outcomes-equity data is uneven across sectors and districts. Cross-cutting visibility is scarce.

Program design

• Public Equity Dashboards per sector × district × group.
• Disaggregation by lawful categories.
• Refresh cycle aligned with administrative data.
• Civic-tech reuse via Open Data Portal.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Statistics Department + State Equity Commission

Backup: Departments (data providers)

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹30-60 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory data-publication.

Payment trigger: Per-quarter dashboard refresh + civic-tech reuse evidence.

KPIs

• • Sectors with current Equity Dashboard — baseline: (new); F: Top 6 sectors; B: All 12 sectors; C: Continuous + refresh discipline.
• • Disaggregation breadth (categories) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Full lawful disaggregation; C: Continuous.
• • Dashboard usage (sessions per district per month) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material engagement; C: Routine reference.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Data privacy at small-cell level. Safeguard: Aggregation thresholds; Trust certification; privacy-enhancing computation pilots (sheet H.159).
• • Risk: Politicisation of group categories. Safeguard: Statutory categories; published methodology.
• • Risk: Data accuracy gap. Safeguard: Version-controlled publication; correction channel; sample audit.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.130, H.180, H.215.

Problem

Karnataka Outcome Budget addresses sector outcomes but a cross-cutting equity dimension is patchy. The marginal rupee chasing the marginal gap is not visible.

Program design

• Equity cross-cut in Outcome Budget — share tagged to outcome-gap closing.
• Annual publication of equity-tagged spend.
• CAG audit on tag integrity.
• Equity-tagged share trajectory: ≥15% Foundations → ≥30% Build-out → ≥45% Consolidation.

Owning agency

Lead: Department of Finance + State Equity Commission

Backup: Karnataka State Statistics Department

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹20-40 cr / year (audit + methodology, no programme cost)

Source: Cross-cut on existing programme spend.

Payment trigger: Annual budget publication + audit evidence.

KPIs

• • Equity-tagged share of programmatic spend — baseline: (new); F: ≥15%; B: ≥30%; C: ≥45%.
• • CAG audit tag-integrity pass rate — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥90%; C: ≥98%.
• • Equity-spend-to-outcome correlation publication — baseline: (new); F: Annual; B: Annual with quality; C: Continuous reference.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Tag-inflation gaming. Safeguard: CAG audit; methodology review; published reclassifications.
• • Risk: Equity cross-cut becoming line-item exercise. Safeguard: Outcome-correlation requirement; sample audit of tag-vs-outcome.
• • Risk: Resource crowding-out from other priorities. Safeguard: Phased trajectory; outcome-evidence based scaling.

Dependencies

• • Vol I Ch 4; App H sheets H.199, H.200.

Problem

Karnataka has uneven service quality across districts and blocks. A floor below which no district falls is rarely defined explicitly.

Program design

• Published Minimum Service Standards for Education, Health, Water, Safety.
• Audit cycle per block.
• Blocks below floor trigger automatic response package.
• Re-audit until floor met.

Owning agency

Lead: Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms + sectoral departments

Backup: State Equity Commission

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹50-90 cr / year (audit + methodology)

Source: State Budget; convergence with sectoral programme spend.

Payment trigger: Per-block audit + remediation-package activation.

KPIs

• • Blocks meeting minimum service standards — baseline: Variable; F: ≥70%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% sustained.
• • Median below-floor blocks remediation time — baseline: (new); F: ≤180 days; B: ≤90 days; C: ≤60 days.
• • Audit-cycle completion rate — baseline: (new); F: All blocks annual; B: Continuous; C: Sustained discipline.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Standards diluted to mask non-compliance. Safeguard: Statutory standards; independent review of changes; transparency of revisions.
• • Risk: Below-floor data suppression. Safeguard: Independent audit; whistleblower protection; statutory publication.
• • Risk: Remediation as paper exercise. Safeguard: Re-audit cycle; outcome verification.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.199, H.200, H.203, H.207.

Problem

Reparative measures in Karnataka often lack explicit time-bound design — sunset criteria are vague; programmes outlive utility or end prematurely.

Program design

• Time-bound programmes targeting specific outcome gaps.
• Sunset criteria defined at design.
• Annual review against criteria.
• Successor or sunset decision published.

Owning agency

Lead: Sectoral departments under State Equity Commission oversight

Backup: State Equity Commission

Funding model

Annual cost band: Variable (programme-specific)

Source: State Budget; programme-specific.

Payment trigger: Per-programme review + sunset/successor decision.

KPIs

• • Gap-closing programmes with published sunset criteria — baseline: (new); F: 100% new programmes; B: 100% all programmes; C: Continuous discipline.
• • Annual review compliance — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.
• • Sunsetted programmes with verified outcome — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material rate; C: Discipline embedded.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Programme persistence beyond utility. Safeguard: Statutory sunset criteria; published review.
• • Risk: Premature sunsetting masking failure. Safeguard: Outcome-evidence based decision; independent verification.
• • Risk: Capture by programme beneficiaries (operators). Safeguard: Transition planning; multi-stakeholder review.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.199, H.201, H.211, H.212, H.213.

Problem

Karnataka outcomes-equity data on caste is uneven; cross-sector picture is rarely consolidated.

Program design

• Annual Caste Outcomes Audit across education, health, employment, asset-ownership.
• Lawful categories (SC, ST, OBC, others).
• Published findings with policy recommendations.
• Independent peer review.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Commissions (SC/ST + Backward Classes) + State Equity Commission

Backup: Karnataka State Statistics Department

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹20-40 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Annual audit publication + recommendation tracking.

KPIs

• • Annual publication compliance — baseline: (new); F: Annual; B: Annual with quality; C: Continuous reference.
• • Recommendation closure rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.
• • Outcome-gap trajectory (sector-weighted) — baseline: Wide; F: Baselined; B: Material narrowing; C: Gaps closed against floor.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Sample-size privacy risk in small subgroups. Safeguard: Aggregation thresholds; Trust certification.
• • Risk: Politicisation. Safeguard: Statutory independence; published methodology; non-partisan governance.
• • Risk: Symbolic findings. Safeguard: Recommendation-tracking; closure rate published.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.199, H.200, H.203.

Problem

Karnataka gender outcomes data exists per sector but cross-sector picture is patchy. Gender-budgeting reports are uneven in operational use.

Program design

• Annual Gender Outcomes Audit cross-sectoral.
• Disaggregation including trans / non-binary where lawful.
• Published findings + sector recommendations.
• Convergence with sector commissions.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Commission for Women + State Equity Commission

Backup: Karnataka State Statistics Department

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹20-40 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Annual publication + recommendation evidence.

KPIs

• • Annual publication compliance — baseline: (new); F: Annual; B: Annual with quality; C: Continuous reference.
• • Recommendation closure rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.
• • Outcome-gap trajectory (sector-weighted) — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined; B: Material narrowing; C: Gaps closed against floor.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Privacy risk for trans / non-binary respondents. Safeguard: Voluntary self-identification; Trust certification; aggregation rules.
• • Risk: Capture by single ideology. Safeguard: Diverse expert participation; published methodology.
• • Risk: Symbolic findings. Safeguard: Recommendation-tracking; closure rate published.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.199, H.200, H.170, H.174.

Problem

Karnataka disability outcomes data is largely confined to RPWD Act compliance metrics. Cross-sector outcomes audit is missing.

Program design

• Annual Disability Outcomes Audit across all sectors.
• Disaggregation by disability type where lawful.
• Published findings + sector recommendations.
• Convergence with RPWD Act implementation.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Commission for Persons with Disabilities + State Equity Commission

Backup: Karnataka State Disability Department

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹20-40 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Annual publication + recommendation evidence.

KPIs

• • Annual publication compliance — baseline: (new); F: Annual; B: Annual with quality; C: Continuous reference.
• • Recommendation closure rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.
• • Outcome-gap trajectory (sector-weighted) — baseline: Wide; F: Baselined; B: Material narrowing; C: Gaps closed against floor.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Sample-size for rare disability types. Safeguard: Aggregation rules; Trust certification.
• • Risk: Department-silo data gaps. Safeguard: Cross-department data-sharing requirement; statutory mandate.
• • Risk: Symbolic findings. Safeguard: Recommendation-tracking; published closure rates.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.199, H.200, H.179, H.010, H.165.

Problem

Karnataka outcomes vary substantially across geography — between districts, within districts across blocks. Aspirational Districts framework is national but block-level is uneven.

Program design

• Geographic Outcomes Audit with focus on aspirational + tribal-area blocks.
• Multi-sector composite index per block.
• Targeted resource trajectory for bottom-quartile blocks.
• Annual revision.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Statistics Department + State Equity Commission

Backup: Department of Planning & Statistics

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹20-40 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Annual publication + resource-trajectory evidence.

KPIs

• • Annual block-index publication — baseline: (new); F: All 31 districts at block resolution; B: Continuous with refresh; C: Sustained reference.
• • Bottom-quartile block convergence trajectory — baseline: Wide gaps; F: Baselined; B: Material narrowing; C: Gaps closed against floor.
• • Resource trajectory match (% spend to bottom blocks) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Equity-tagged share growth; C: Sustained equity allocation.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Index methodology gaming. Safeguard: Open methodology; independent peer review.
• • Risk: Resource diversion to politically favoured blocks. Safeguard: Statutory criteria; published allocation; CAG audit.
• • Risk: Sample-size for small blocks. Safeguard: Aggregation rules; Trust certification.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.199, H.200, H.124, H.202.

Problem

Karnataka state employment representation across constitutional categories is uneven; representation gaps in senior cadres are particularly significant.

Program design

• Published representation targets per cadre per category.
• Annual representation report by department.
• Promotion-panel transparency.
• Affirmative-action audit by KPSC oversight.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka Public Service Commission + Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms

Backup: Sector commissions

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹30-60 cr / year (audit + transparency)

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Annual representation publication + audit evidence.

KPIs

• • Target-achievement rate per cadre per category — baseline: Variable; F: Published trajectory; B: Targets met or with published reason; C: Sustained discipline.
• • Senior-cadre representation trajectory — baseline: Below targets; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Targets met.
• • Promotion-panel reason-publication rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% (aggregate).

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Tokenistic recruitment without progression. Safeguard: Senior-cadre outcome tracking; promotion-parity audit.
• • Risk: Cadre politicisation. Safeguard: KPSC independence; Vol III Ch 20 Anti-Interference Log.
• • Risk: Backlog-filling without genuine integration. Safeguard: Quality outcomes audit; mentorship; published progression.

Dependencies

• • Vol III Ch 20; App H sheets H.177, H.178.

Problem

Karnataka public procurement preference rules for SHGs, MSMEs, and local production exist on paper but operational application is uneven.

Program design

• Statutory procurement-preference rules where lawful.
• Published share per category per department.
• Convergence with KPPP for application.
• Audit for compliance + outcome.

Owning agency

Lead: Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms + Procurement Audit Cell

Backup: Karnataka Public Procurement Portal team

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹20-40 cr / year (audit + facilitation)

Source: State Budget; built into procurement framework.

Payment trigger: Per-procurement share data + audit evidence.

KPIs

• • SHG / MSME / local share (by category, where lawful) — baseline: Limited; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained policy outcomes.
• • Compliance audit pass rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.
• • Preference fraud detection rate — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material accuracy; C: Sustained capability.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Front-company fraud (large player masquerading as small). Safeguard: Beneficial-ownership audit; vendor blacklist.
• • Risk: Subsidy capture by single faction. Safeguard: Rotation; transparent allocation; published award rules.
• • Risk: Quality compromise under preference rule. Safeguard: Quality-standard parity; sample audit; right to fail.

Dependencies

• • Vol I Ch 4; App H sheets H.122, H.114, H.063.

Problem

Karnataka outcomes equity addresses income gaps unevenly; wealth and asset gaps — land, housing, financial assets — are largely unaddressed in long-arc design.

Program design

• Asset-building programmes targeted to bottom-quartile households.
• Pathways: housing tenure security, financial-asset accumulation, productive-asset access.
• Convergence with sheets H.040 (worker housing), H.060 (FPO), H.122 (SHG).
• Long-arc equity tracking.

Owning agency

Lead: Department of Social Welfare + Department of Housing + State Equity Commission

Backup: Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹800-1,200 cr / year (programmatic)

Source: State Budget; central convergence (housing, financial inclusion).

Payment trigger: Per-household enrolment + asset-accumulation evidence.

KPIs

• • Bottom-quartile households with documented asset-trajectory — baseline: (new); F: Baselined per district; B: Material progress; C: Sustained wealth-building.
• • Housing-tenure security rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥85%; C: ≥95%.
• • Financial-asset accumulation rate (sample-tracked) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained long-arc equity.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Asset-loss via predatory financial products. Safeguard: Financial-literacy support; consumer protection; sheet H.151 alignment.
• • Risk: Subsidy capture by non-target. Safeguard: Spine-linked verification; sample audit.
• • Risk: Programme fatigue with slow visible outcomes. Safeguard: Phased visible milestones; communication discipline.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.040, H.060, H.122, H.166.

Problem

Karnataka education outcome gaps are concentrated in identifiable blocks. Recovery programmes need block-specific intensity.

Program design

• Block-level recovery programme — additional teacher coaching, learning materials, transport, scholarship.
• Trigger from gap audits (sheet H.207).
• Time-bound (3-5 years) with sunset criteria.
• Independent verification of outcomes.

Owning agency

Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy

Backup: State Equity Commission

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹200-300 cr / year (gap-block specific)

Source: State Budget School Education head; equity cross-cut.

Payment trigger: Per-block recovery-programme enrolment + outcome evidence.

KPIs

• • Gap blocks with active recovery programme — baseline: (new); F: Top 10 gap blocks; B: All identified blocks; C: Continuous as gaps surface.
• • Block-level outcome trajectory — baseline: Wide gap vs state median; F: Baselined; B: Material narrowing; C: Gap closed against floor.
• • Programme completion rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥85%; C: ≥90%.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Programme persistence beyond utility. Safeguard: Sunset criteria (sheet H.203); independent verification.
• • Risk: Resource concentration leaving other gaps. Safeguard: Periodic re-prioritisation; balanced portfolio.
• • Risk: Local political pressure on programme allocation. Safeguard: Statutory criteria; transparent allocation.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.001–H.018 (Education), H.207, H.203.

Problem

Karnataka health outcome gaps (maternal, child, NCD, life-expectancy) are concentrated in identifiable blocks. Recovery requires intensive intervention.

Program design

• Block-level recovery — Family Health Team augmentation, supply-chain priority, mobile care.
• Trigger from gap audits.
• Time-bound with sunset criteria.
• Independent verification.

Owning agency

Lead: Department of Health & Family Welfare

Backup: State Equity Commission

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹300-450 cr / year (gap-block specific)

Source: State Budget Health head; equity cross-cut.

Payment trigger: Per-block recovery + outcome evidence.

KPIs

• • Gap blocks with active recovery programme — baseline: (new); F: Top 10 gap blocks; B: All identified blocks; C: Continuous.
• • Block-level health-outcome trajectory — baseline: Wide gap; F: Baselined; B: Material narrowing; C: Gap closed against floor.
• • Maternal + child outcome improvement — baseline: Above acceptable; F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: At/below state target.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Programme persistence beyond utility. Safeguard: Sunset criteria; outcome verification.
• • Risk: Programme captured by single provider. Safeguard: Rotation; quality audit; provider blacklist for proven fraud.
• • Risk: Surveillance creep through intensive monitoring. Safeguard: Citizen Data Trust review; minimum-data principle.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.019–H.036 (Health), H.207, H.203.

Problem

Karnataka safety outcome gaps (gender-based violence, child safety, road safety) concentrate in identifiable geographies. Audit-driven response is uneven.

Program design

• Block-level safety outcome audits.
• Cross-sector response (police + health + education + women’s welfare).
• Published response with remedy commitments.
• Convergence with women’s safety (sheet H.170), road safety (sheet H.047).

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Police + State Equity Commission

Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Women

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹50-90 cr / year

Source: State Budget; equity cross-cut.

Payment trigger: Per-block audit + cross-sector response evidence.

KPIs

• • Gap blocks with active safety-response programme — baseline: (new); F: Top 10 gap blocks; B: All identified; C: Continuous.
• • Block-level safety-incident trajectory — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: Sustained low.
• • Response-implementation rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Over-policing harming community trust. Safeguard: Cross-sector approach; community engagement; sheet H.099 behavioural standards.
• • Risk: Under-reporting masking gap. Safeguard: Independent victim-survey methodology; sample audit.
• • Risk: Symbolic response. Safeguard: Outcome-verification; remedy tracking.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.099, H.170, H.047, H.011.

Problem

Karnataka anti-discrimination enforcement is largely complaint-driven; pattern-level discrimination across institutions is rarely audited proactively.

Program design

• Pattern audits across services / institutions for discrimination indicators.
• Statutory authority to investigate without specific complaint.
• Published findings + remedy commitments.
• Cross-link with Grievance Justice Authority.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Commissions (cross-sector) + State Equity Commission

Backup: Karnataka Grievance Justice Authority

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹30-60 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Per-audit completion + remedy publication.

KPIs

• • Pattern audits commissioned per year — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Routine across institutions; C: Sustained capability.
• • Remedy-implementation closure rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.
• • Institution-level discrimination-indicator trajectory — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: Sustained low.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Investigation-power misuse. Safeguard: Statutory criteria; appeal pathway; published methodology.
• • Risk: Pattern-detection captured by political agenda. Safeguard: Independent governance; statistical methodology; peer review.
• • Risk: Whistleblower retaliation. Safeguard: Statutory protection; Grievance Justice Authority remedy.

Dependencies

• • Vol I Ch 6; App H sheets H.176, H.199, H.180.

Problem

Karnataka equity data lives in scattered reports across commissions and departments. Annual cross-cutting publication for citizen oversight is missing.

Program design

• Annual Public Equity Report consolidating across sectors and groups.
• Plain-language summary alongside technical data.
• Civil-society consultation in framing.
• Convergence with State Equity Commission annual report.

Owning agency

Lead: State Equity Commission + Karnataka State Statistics Department

Backup: Karnataka State Information Commission

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹20-40 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Annual publication + civic engagement evidence.

KPIs

• • Annual report publication compliance — baseline: (new); F: Annual; B: Annual with quality; C: Continuous reference.
• • Civic-society consultation completion — baseline: (new); F: Pilot scale; B: Routine; C: Embedded discipline.
• • Plain-language summary reach (sessions per district per month) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material reach; C: Routine reference.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Selective publication. Safeguard: Statutory categories; KIC oversight; whistleblower protection.
• • Risk: Politicisation of framing. Safeguard: Independent academic curation; methodology published.
• • Risk: Information overload reducing use. Safeguard: Plain-language summary; visualisation; assisted-access pathway.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.199, H.200, H.180.

Problem

Karnataka equity audits typically rely on administrative data. The voice of those served — about whether service quality is actually equitable — is rarely systematised.

Program design

• Annual citizen-feedback survey on equity dimensions.
• Disaggregated by group and geography.
• Independent methodology and execution.
• Findings inform service redesign.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Statistics Department + State Equity Commission

Backup: Independent academic / civil-society partnership

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹30-60 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Annual survey + redesign-uptake evidence.

KPIs

• • Annual survey completion — baseline: (new); F: Annual; B: Annual with quality; C: Continuous reference.
• • Sample-size representativeness pass rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.
• • Service-redesign uptake from feedback — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material uptake; C: Embedded loop.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Survey methodology bias. Safeguard: Independent methodology; published; peer review.
• • Risk: Sample exclusion of hardest-to-reach. Safeguard: Sampling design audit; over-sampling at margins.
• • Risk: Findings ignored by service deliverers. Safeguard: Statutory feedback-loop; published response; rating-triggered audit.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.199, H.200, H.215.

Architecture cross-reference

Architecture cross-reference — sector sheets to architectural sheets

Each program sheet in this sector references the operating architecture defined in Vol I Ch 2 and App H CyberDPI sheets H.230–H.233. Specifically: financial flows from this sector’s programs are published through the Open Ledger (sector-specific data fields per App D) anchored to KSSL (sheet H.230). Time-series outcome data and sector dashboards are published on the Karnataka Open Data Portal (sheet H.233). Personal data flows (where applicable) are governed by the Citizen Consent Ledger (sheet H.232). Security audit and incident response across this sector’s systems falls under the statutory CSOC (sheet H.231).

H.199 — EQUITY — State Equity Commission

H.200 — EQUITY — Equity Dashboards by Sector & District

H.201 — EQUITY — Outcome Budget — Equity Cross-cut

H.202 — EQUITY — Minimum Service Standards (Education, Health, Water, Safety)

H.203 — EQUITY — Gap-Closing Programmes (Time-bound)

H.204 — EQUITY — Caste Outcomes Audit (annual)

H.205 — EQUITY — Gender Outcomes Audit

H.206 — EQUITY — Disability Outcomes Audit

H.207 — EQUITY — Geographic Outcomes Audit (Aspirational Blocks)

H.208 — EQUITY — Employment Equity in State Hiring

H.209 — EQUITY — Procurement Equity (SHG, MSME, local)

H.210 — EQUITY — Wealth & Asset-Building Programmes

H.211 — EQUITY — Educational Outcome Recovery in Gap Blocks

H.212 — EQUITY — Health Outcome Recovery in Gap Blocks

H.213 — EQUITY — Safety Outcome Audits in Gap Blocks

H.214 — EQUITY — Anti-Discrimination Enforcement: Pattern Audits

H.215 — EQUITY — Public Reporting on Equity (Annual)

H.216 — EQUITY — Citizen Feedback Equity Audits

---

← Appendix H — Program Atlas · Appendix H — Program Atlas →

This is a chapter of The People's Model manifesto for Karnataka — published in full for public review. Every claim may be challenged: write to [email protected].