We launched an instrument — not a product

On 28 April 2026, we put something on diggs.no that wasn't there the day before. Not a new article, not a whitepaper, not a contact form. An evaluation tool — an instrument that tests software, services, and hardware against the Diggs Doctrine.

We call it the Diggs Doctrine Scorecard.

The background

The Diggs Doctrine has, from the beginning, been a framework for understanding why Europe has an architectural problem, not a technology problem. It articulates what sovereignty actually requires — not as a political declaration, but as a measurable property of a system.

The problem with doctrines is that they stay on paper. Europe produces manifestos and frameworks for digital sovereignty. Almost none of them translate into something that can be used to make a concrete decision. "Reduce dependencies" is not an instruction. "Can this service be deactivated by an external actor?" is.

That is what Scorecard does.

What the tool actually does

Scorecard runs an evaluation in two layers. The first layer — the strict doctrine — is uncompromising. Four tests in fixed sequence: kill switch, exit, transparency, adoption. A single failure is sufficient to conclude that the system is not sovereign. That is not a harsh standard because we are ideological. It is a harsh standard because it is the only standard that actually means something under real geopolitical uncertainty.

The second layer — pragmatic patriotism — is the operational answer to the fact that Europe does not have a complete sovereign stack ready to take over tomorrow. We cannot be religious open source fanatics. We also cannot accept that "temporary solution" ends up as a permanent state. This layer assesses whether a solution can be accepted temporarily — and on exactly what conditions. If no realistic exit plan can be formulated, the answer is not acceptable, regardless of how practical the solution is today.

The result is a structured assessment with a conclusion, justification, and a sovereignty score from 1 to 10.

The score is calculated according to a deterministic model with predefined weights — number of passed tests, criticality level, and the provider's jurisdiction. The language model generates the evaluation text, but the score is calculated and locked by the code. We always round down, never up. It is not AI that decides 7 or 8 — it is the architecture.

The evaluation text will have natural variation between runs. This is the honest price for using a generative model, and it is one of the reasons why this project needs research funding — to replace probabilistic text generation with academically validated methodology.

What it is not

Scorecard and this instrument is a prototype. It is not a certification tool, not a legal assessment, and not an academically validated methodology. That is coming. Evaluations are generated by an AI model (Gemini) based on the two doctrine documents that define the evaluation criteria. We are explicit about this in every result.

Prototype is not an apology. It is a position. It means the methodology is under development, that we are actively seeking feedback from those who use it, and that we are working toward a more rigorous, research-based standard.

Try it yourself

You will find Scorecard at diggs.no/en/scorecard. You enter a product — it can be a cloud service, a collaboration tool, a laptop, or an infrastructure component. You select mode and criticality level. You receive an evaluation.

Hetzner Cloud scores 8/10 and is temporarily acceptable with conditions at Level 1. Microsoft 365 scores 2/10 and is not acceptable as critical infrastructure — structural lock-in makes a realistic exit impossible within 24 months. That is not an opinion. It is a consequence of what these products actually are, assessed against criteria that do not negotiate.

Test your own stack. That is what the tool is there for. → Open Scorecard

What this could become

It is too early to say what Scorecard will become. What we know is where the gap is: Europe does not lack ambition around digital sovereignty. What it lacks are measurable, repeatable methods for evaluating whether concrete technology choices are actually moving us in the right direction.

Scorecard is a first answer to that gap. A database of evaluations over time is a natural next step — a reference catalogue where European organisations can orient themselves toward solutions that actually hold up. Portfolio analysis, where one evaluates not just a single product but the dependency pattern across an entire technology stack, is another direction. What it actually becomes depends on what research, feedback, and funding make possible.

For now, it is an instrument. Use it.

Kenneth Bæver Bjerke, Diggs.no