Methodology
How the Sovereignty Index is assessed
The Sovereignty Index evaluates digital services against eight sovereignty objectives using a staircase model. Each objective is assessed progressively from SEAL-1 to SEAL-4, then combined into a weighted total score. The result is a method that is transparent, structured and easy to compare across services.
Overview
The index is built to answer a more useful question than whether a service is simply “European”. It evaluates how deeply a service is anchored in the European legal, operational, technological and supply-chain environment.
Structured
Every service is assessed against the same eight objectives and the same progressive SEAL logic, making outcomes consistent and reproducible.
Progressive
A service can only move upward by meeting stronger requirements. Higher assurance cannot be claimed when a lower foundational step fails.
Comparable
Objective-level results remain visible alongside the final score, so strong overall performance cannot hide a meaningful sovereignty weakness.
The staircase model
Each sovereignty objective is assessed as a staircase. A provider climbs from lower to higher assurance only when the required criteria are met at each step.
The staircase logic is based on the European Commission’s Cloud Sovereignty Framework, which defines eight sovereignty objectives, sovereignty effectiveness assurance levels (SEALs), and a weighted score structure. The Sovereignty Index adapts that model into a concise public-facing assessment method.
Collect evidence
Public documentation, technical documentation, provider disclosures, legal terms and independent evidence are reviewed per criterion.
Test each step
For every SOV, the service is checked from lower to higher assurance using the staircase criteria.
Assign the achieved SEAL
The achieved level is the highest step for which all required lower conditions are satisfied.
Calculate the total
Objective-level performance is normalized and weighted, then combined into a final Sovereignty Score.
How weighted scoring works
The final score combines performance across all eight objectives. Each objective contributes according to its assigned weight.
Expand section
How weighted scoring works
The final score combines performance across all eight objectives. Each objective contributes according to its assigned weight.
- Each SOV is first assessed against its own criteria.
- The achieved result is normalized against the maximum possible score for that SOV.
- The normalized result is multiplied by the SOV weight.
- All weighted SOV results are added to produce a final score out of 100.
How the weighted score is shown
The weighted score reflects the share of weighted requirements counted as satisfied. At this stage, requirements assessed as fully met and partially met contribute equally to the weighted score. To make this more transparent, the service detail page separately shows which part of the score comes from requirements that were fully met and which part comes from requirements only partially met.
This visual improves transparency, but it does not change the current score calculation itself.
How the confidence score should be read
The confidence score does not measure service quality. It reflects evidence strength: how firmly an assessment rests on public proof. Explicit facts score highest, strict deduction from explicit facts lower, indirect proxy evidence lower still, and missing evidence lowest.
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1 | Fact-based, directly evidenced. |
| 0.5 | Deduced from explicit facts, or no evidence found after thorough search. |
| 0.25 | Inference from indirect proxy evidence. |
| 0 | No reliable basis; cannot assess. |
The eight sovereignty objectives
Each objective has its own four-step progression. The cards below summarize the core criterion that defines the move from one SEAL to the next.
Expand section
The eight sovereignty objectives
Each objective has its own four-step progression. The cards below summarize the core criterion that defines the move from one SEAL to the next.
Strategic Sovereignty
Assesses where decisive ownership, governance, financing and strategic control sit.
Legal & Jurisdictional Sovereignty
Assesses whether the provider remains subject to foreign legal reach outside the EU.
Data & AI Sovereignty
Assesses where data and AI processing take place and whether third-country fallback remains.
Operational Sovereignty
Assesses whether operations can be run and sustained from within Europe without non-EU dependency.
Supply Chain Sovereignty
Assesses exposure to external hyperscalers, opaque infrastructure dependencies and software supply-chain control.
Technology Sovereignty
Assesses openness, auditability and control over the core technology stack.
Security & Compliance Sovereignty
Assesses whether security operations and patch autonomy remain under European control.
Environmental Sustainability
Assesses how credible and resilient the environmental sustainability foundation of the service is.
How this methodology is applied in practice
The related research process explains how services are selected, how evidence is gathered, what source standard applies, and how corrections or challenges are handled.
Expand section
How this methodology is applied in practice
The related research process explains how services are selected, how evidence is gathered, what source standard applies, and how corrections or challenges are handled.
How this methodology is applied in practice
The methodology above explains how the Sovereignty Index works. The related research process explains how services are selected, how evidence is gathered, what source standard applies, and how corrections or challenges are handled.
Service selection
Services are selected for relevance, category coverage, comparative value and research priority, rather than only through published editorial coverage.
Assessment workflow
Research is AI-assisted, evidence-based and supported by manual sample checking and occasional corrections.
Evidence standard
Only public, verifiable and reliable evidence is used. Unsupported claims do not justify a score adjustment.
Corrections and reuse
Providers can submit better evidence for review. All rights are reserved, and any commercial, promotional or marketing use requires prior written approval from the Sovereignty Index.
Methodology version management
The methodology may evolve over time. This section explains how changes are versioned and how readers should interpret scorecards issued under different versions.
Expand section
Methodology version management
The methodology may evolve over time. This section explains how changes are versioned and how readers should interpret scorecards issued under different versions.
The Sovereignty Index methodology may be updated over time through refinements, additions, removals or clarifications to the criteria and assessment logic. Each scorecard is issued under a specific methodology version and should be read in that context.
What defines a version
A methodology version is defined by the reference framework in use, the active criteria set, and the assessment logic used to determine whether criteria are not met, partially met or met.
What appears on scorecards
Newly issued scorecards should display the applicable methodology version together with the assessment date, so readers can understand the scoring context at the time of issue.
Why versioning matters
When criteria or assessment logic change, weighted scores and SEAL outcomes may also change. Versioning helps distinguish between changes in provider performance and changes in the methodology itself.
How version numbers are structured
n.0.0 Major version — a substantial methodology update, such as broader restructuring of criteria, changes to sovereignty objectives, or material changes to the way assessment outcomes are determined and compared.
x.n.0 Minor version — a limited methodology update, such as a small number of added, removed or materially revised criteria, or a limited refinement to assessment logic, with some impact possible across the index.
x.x.n Patch version — a small clarification or narrowly scoped refinement with no or very limited expected impact on weighted scores or SEAL outcomes.
Scope note: methodology version management is applied prospectively. Historical scorecards issued before formal version management may not display an explicit methodology version.
Reference framework
This methodology is based on the European Commission’s Cloud Sovereignty Framework, which defines the eight sovereignty objectives, the SEAL model and the weighted score structure.
Important note on the red flag
A service that does not reach SEAL-2 for SOV-2 receives a red flag for legal sovereignty. This indicates the provider remains subject to foreign legal authority outside the EU legal sphere. Even when the weighted total score is relatively strong, that exposure remains significant enough to be called out separately.
Important note on SOV-8
The generic SEAL staircase is less natural for SOV-8: Environmental Sustainability than for the other objectives. The Sovereignty Index therefore defines distinct maturity criteria for SOV-8 that better reflect the sustainability performance of the specific solution being assessed, while still fitting into the overall index structure.