I work where institutions lose visibility. A governance collapse that fifteen years of data tracked in real time. A nine-figure acquisition with sanctioned actors four layers deep. A disinformation network in a live conflict zone, traced to state and non-state operators.
Every methodology is open, every input is adjustable, and every output is traceable back to its source data. Built to be handed off.
How close is a country's media environment to historical pre-conflict patterns? Adapted Groseclose-Milyo framework. Pick a country, adjust the weights, see what's driving the score.
Launch Tool →Which trafficking corridors are most dangerous right now, and what happens if you shut one down? Score routes with OSINT indicators, model disruptions, test how sensitive your rankings are to different assumptions.
Launch Tool →Who's orchestrating without appearing prominent? D3 force-directed graph maps relationships between actors, outlets, and event clusters. Eigenvector centrality surfaces nodes that drive narratives without driving headlines. Built for counter-disinformation, threat-actor attribution, and coordinated inauthentic behavior detection.
That's where trust erodes, bad actors move in, and policy fails. I measure the gap, trace who's exploiting it, and build tools that keep it visible.
Some projects are redacted for confidentiality. Method and impact are described at the level I can share publicly. Additional details available on request.
Formal vs. informal institution gap · TAF Survey of the Afghan People
The Asia Foundation's Survey of the Afghan People is the most comprehensive longitudinal civilian survey ever conducted in a conflict zone. Fifteen waves, 2006 to 2021, 148,196 respondents across all 34 provinces. Security, governance, corruption, ethnic identity, institutional trust.
I cleaned the full dataset and built an analytical platform on it: province-level panel analysis, survey-weighted regression, external data integration from UNODC, ACLED, and OPHI. The question was straightforward — what were Afghan civilians actually telling us, year after year, about who was governing them?
The answer: the state never closed the gap between its official narratives and operational reality. Non-state actors filled it. That's not an ideological argument. It's what 148,196 respondents said, year after year, for fifteen years.
Dashboard access: The analytical platform is available for demonstration to research partners, commissioners, and editorial teams. Request a walkthrough →
Four findings from the TAF Survey that the standard policy metrics missed.
State court satisfaction never exceeded 20% across any wave or province grouping. Taliban dispute resolution reached 78.8% by Wave 15 in Taliban-present areas. This is the implementation gap: formal institutions failing to deliver where informal ones already did.
Personal security perception decline preceded governance collapse by 2–3 survey waves in southern provinces. Security was a leading indicator; institutional trust was lagging.
Pashtun respondents showed the widest and most persistent gap between state governance scores and non-state support proxies across all fifteen waves. Aggregate "Afghan opinion" is analytically meaningless: it averages over communities running fundamentally different calculations.
Opium cultivation intensity correlates with general institutional distrust (p<0.001) for state courts and community institutions equally. The causal substitution theory — that insurgent actors displaced state institutions — fails the falsification test.
35+ pieces spanning counterterrorism, governance, Indo-Pacific security, and militant communications. Full samples available on request.
Available for commissioned analysis, investigation subcontracts, custom tool development, research collaboration, and advisory retainers. Dashboard demonstrations by arrangement.