Research libraryMethodology & data
Methods note
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
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%
Stability
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.
Out of sample
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
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
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.
Alt-30 (2026). Choosing the Weights: an Empirical Check, Methods note (v1.0.0). Alt-30. https://portal.alt-30.com/reports/eri-weights-note
More in methodology & data