Research libraryMethodology & data

Methods note

We let the data try to pick the weights. It couldn't beat judgment.

Fitting dimension weights to COVID-era outcomes across 3,080 counties produced weights no more predictive out of sample than the ones we chose — and far less stable.

Choosing the Weights: an Empirical CheckSep 10, 2026United StatesPublished

Chosen vs. fitted

The data wanted housing and diversification. We weight program reliance.

Dimension weight, share of composite (six structural dimensions)

Chosen (renormalized)

  • Economic diversification

    19%

  • Employment

    19%

  • Income & poverty

    19%

  • Program reliance

    25%

  • Human capital

    9%

  • Housing

    9%

Empirical fit, full sample

  • Economic diversification

    28%

  • Employment

    18%

  • Income & poverty

    5%

  • Program reliance

    16%

  • Human capital

    11%

  • Housing

    22%

Recovery dynamics is excluded from the fit because it is measured on the same shock (leakage).

Stability

The fitted weights move a lot between folds.

Standard deviation of each fitted weight across cross-validation folds, in percentage points. A weight that swings by 10 points is not a weight, it is noise.

  1. 1Economic diversification10
  2. 2Income & poverty9
  3. 3Program reliance6
  4. 4Housing3
  5. 5Human capital3
  6. 6Employment2
Cross-validated; seed fixed and recorded.

Out of sample

Neither set predicts the COVID unemployment spike.

Spearman correlation between composite and 2020 unemployment spike, held-out folds. All near zero.

0.036

chosen weights

0.014

empirically fitted weights

0.015

equal weights

How this is calculated, and what it does not say›

Six leakage-free structural dimensions; recovery_dynamics excluded. One shock only — evidence, not yet grounds to change the index.

The honest conclusion: one shock cannot set the weights. A second, conventional recession in the data would; until then the weights stay a disclosed judgment with a published sensitivity test.

Dig deeper

Data in this edition

See the report's methodology section.

Sources carry different vintages and lags by design and are never combined inside one figure. The write-up's caveats section says what the index does and does not claim.

Cite as

Alt30 (2026). Choosing the Weights: an Empirical Check, Methods note (v1.0.0). Alt30. https://base.alt-30.com/reports/eri-weights-note

Share this report

Choosing the Weights: an Empirical Check — the finding and key numbers on one card

The finding, on one card

A share-ready snapshot of this report's headline and key numbers, refreshed with the report. Drop it into a post, a deck or an email — or just link the report and this is the preview people see.

Download card (PNG)

Permanent link

https://base.alt-30.com/reports/eri-weights-note

A stable link to this snapshot. Pasting it into tools that support oEmbed embeds it automatically.

Embed on your site

<div style="position:relative;width:100%;max-width:600px;padding-bottom:52.5%"> <iframe src="https://base.alt-30.com/embed/card/eri-weights-note" loading="lazy" title="Alt30 economic snapshot" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;border:0"></iframe> </div>

A responsive snapshot that stays current and links back to the full report.

More in methodology & data