The SDGs help Kokonut organize development claims — they do not create the evidence.

The Sustainable Development Goals give Kokonut a shared language for asking how farm activity may relate to:

livelihoods;
food;
gender;
work;
land;
education;
water;
climate;
infrastructure;
partnerships;
other development priorities.

That makes the SDGs useful for:

farm planning;
grant applications;
partner reporting;
MRV design;
annual review;
research;
public communication.

But an SDG label is not an outcome.

Use the SDGs to organize the claim. Use farm evidence to determine how strong the claim can be.

See Adelphi's SDG evidence

Inspect the current five-goal reference set and the evidence boundaries behind each Adelphi claim.

Use the Positive Impact claim ladder

Separate alignment, activity, measured outcome, and impact interpretation before reporting SDG contribution.

Plan the evidence

Connect SDG claims to source records, methods, reporting periods, review, publication, and limitations.

Model a scenario

Explore SDG relevance and evidence readiness without generating a verified impact score.

SDG alignment does not mean UN endorsement, certification, verified contribution, or achievement of a Goal. A farm should report only the level of claim its evidence supports.

The SDG claim ladder

Kokonut uses the same four-level claim ladder across SDG reporting.

Level	What it means	Example	What it does not prove
Alignment	The farm design relates to an SDG	A farm plans diversified food production	Food security improved
Activity	A relevant intervention occurred	Crops were planted or a training was delivered	The development outcome changed
Measured outcome	A defined result was recorded	A harvest, job, skill assessment, or ecological indicator was measured	The farm caused the broader SDG outcome
Impact interpretation	Evidence and context support a bounded conclusion	Food access improved for a defined group during a defined period	Universal or permanent achievement of the Goal

Most SDG overclaiming happens when documentation jumps from alignment or activity directly to impact interpretation.

The current five-goal reference set

Kokonut’s current documentation and calculator emphasize five SDGs because they are the strongest recurring fit with Adelphi, the first live reference farm:

SDG 1 — No Poverty
SDG 2 — Zero Hunger
SDG 5 — Gender Equality
SDG 8 — Decent Work and Economic Growth
SDG 15 — Life on Land

These five are useful as a reference reporting set. They are not mandatory outcomes for every future farm. A future farm may:

have strong evidence for only some of the five;
add a different SDG because its local intervention genuinely supports it;
omit a Goal when the relationship is weak;
strengthen or downgrade a Goal as actual evidence changes.

The Framework standard is evidence relevance, not checkbox coverage.

SDG 13 remains a climate co-benefit in the current reference model

Biochar, agroforestry, perennial vegetation, soil-management practices, and reduced bare soil can all be climate-relevant. That does not create a quantified climate result. Until an appropriate carbon/climate methodology is operationalized with:

baseline;
boundary;
reporting period;
measurements;
uncertainty;
permanence/reversal treatment where relevant;
qualified review;

SDG 13 — Climate Action should remain a secondary climate co-benefit rather than a verified carbon claim.

Primary, contextual, and inactive are reporting states — not permanent labels

The old page divided all 17 Goals into permanent “primary” and “secondary” tiers. A more useful approach is to classify SDGs per farm and reporting period.

Reporting state	Meaning
Reference priority	Part of the current Kokonut/Adelphi reporting set and materially relevant to the project
Contextual / conditional	Relevant only if the farm has the corresponding intervention and evidence
Inactive / not claimed	The farm should not claim this Goal in the current period
Under review	Relationship appears plausible but the boundary, method, or evidence is not yet strong enough

This avoids treating every Goal as something every farm must “cover.”

The 17-SDG Framework map

The full map remains useful as a screening and interpretation tool. It should not be read as a statement that every Kokonut farm contributes to all 17 Goals.

SDG	Possible Kokonut relevance	Evidence boundary
1 — No Poverty	Work, productive assets, realized income, public-benefit flows	Jobs/revenue alone do not prove poverty reduction
2 — Zero Hunger	Food production, harvest, distribution, affordability/access	Crop plans do not prove improved food security
3 — Good Health and Well-being	Worker safety, food access, health-related programming	Regenerative production does not prove nutrition or medical outcomes
4 — Quality Education	Training, demonstrations, open learning resources	Attendance does not prove learning
5 — Gender Equality	Women-led ownership/management, participation, opportunity, benefit sharing	Women-led status alone does not prove reduced gender inequality
6 — Clean Water and Sanitation	Water-management, runoff, erosion, water quality where relevant	Soil cover alone does not prove watershed improvement
7 — Affordable and Clean Energy	Renewable-energy systems or documented energy transition where implemented	Reduced fertilizer/input use is not itself a clean-energy outcome
8 — Decent Work and Economic Growth	Jobs, work quality, skills, realized economic activity	Job count alone does not prove decent work
9 — Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure	Farm infrastructure, data systems, open technical infrastructure	Technology deployment alone does not prove broad industrial development
10 — Reduced Inequalities	Access, participation, distribution, contribution pathways	Open participation does not prove inequality decreased
11 — Sustainable Cities and Communities	Local food systems, community spaces, resilience where applicable	Rural farm activity is not automatically an SDG 11 outcome
12 — Responsible Consumption and Production	Input/resource records, waste reduction, reuse, procurement, production practices	“Closed loop” language requires material-flow evidence
13 — Climate Action	Climate-relevant practices, carbon/soil/biomass evidence where methodology exists	No quantified climate claim without a fit-for-purpose methodology
14 — Life Below Water	Watershed-to-coast effects where a relevant hydrological connection exists	A terrestrial farm should not claim SDG 14 without water/coastal evidence
15 — Life on Land	Soil, vegetation, habitat, biodiversity, agroforestry, nursery work	Practices do not automatically prove ecological recovery
16 — Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	Transparent governance, dispute handling, auditability where the claim is relevant	On-chain records alone do not prove institutional quality
17 — Partnerships for the Goals	Formal collaboration, shared delivery, funding, research, open-source coordination	A partner logo or informal relationship does not prove partnership outcomes

The Framework can screen all 17 Goals. A farm report should activate only the Goals for which the project can define a credible relationship and evidence plan.

Where SDGs sit inside the Kokonut Framework

Framework layer	Role in SDG work
Common Data Schema	Establishes the farm baseline and planning context
Pillars of Value	Defines what, who, scale, contribution, risk, and public benefit
8 Forms of Capital	Categorizes the type of value under discussion
5 Principles of Regeneration	Describes regenerative design/practice
Positive Impact Methodology	Defines the claim ladder and interpretation boundary
MRV	Connects claims to observations, measurements, actuals, review, and publication
SDGs	Map reviewed evidence into a recognized development-goal lens
Kokonut Intelligence	Supports data lifecycle, analytics, reporting, and optional provenance infrastructure

The SDG layer sits after the evidence, not before it.

How SDG evidence should flow

The durable evidence sequence is:

claim hypothesis → source record → observation / measurement / actual → review → publication when appropriate → optional attestation → SDG interpretation

Not every SDG record requires:

IPFS;
Filecoin;
EAS;
an on-chain event.

Those technologies can help with provenance and durable evidence references. They do not establish the development outcome by themselves.

The current five reference SDGs

SDG 1 — No Poverty

Relevant Kokonut pathways

A farm may connect to SDG 1 through:

paid work;
productive assets;
realized farm income;
operator income;
public-benefit transfers;
livelihood capacity.

Claim progression

Level	Example
Alignment	The farm is intended to create local economic opportunity
Activity	Worker roles exist; production infrastructure is operating
Measured outcome	Compensation, realized revenue, transfers, or beneficiary income changes are recorded
Impact interpretation	Evidence supports a bounded livelihood/poverty conclusion for a defined group and period

Evidence can include

role/employment records;
compensation/payroll;
realized sales/revenue;
operator income where appropriate;
public-goods transfers/use;
beneficiary/household evidence when making poverty claims.

Jobs, forecast revenue, productive assets, or a public-goods percentage do not by themselves prove poverty reduction.

SDG 2 — Zero Hunger

Relevant Kokonut pathways

A farm may connect to SDG 2 through:

food production;
harvest;
distribution;
affordability/access;
production continuity;
diversified crop/food systems.

Claim progression

Level	Example
Alignment	Food production is part of the farm design
Activity	Crops were planted; poultry/food-production systems operate
Measured outcome	Harvest, losses, sales, distribution, and/or access are recorded
Impact interpretation	Evidence supports a bounded food-access or food-security conclusion

Evidence can include

harvest actuals;
crop/product records;
egg/animal-production records;
losses;
sales;
distribution;
affordability/access;
target-population evidence where making food-security claims.

Production capacity is not the same as improved food security.

SDG 5 — Gender Equality

Relevant Kokonut pathways

A farm may connect to SDG 5 through:

ownership;
management;
decision-making;
paid work;
training;
contributor access;
income and benefit sharing.

Claim progression

Level	Example
Alignment	The project intends to expand women’s participation or leadership
Activity / documented state	Women hold documented founder, owner, operator, management, or contributor roles
Measured outcome	Participation, compensation, income, opportunity, or decision-power changes are recorded
Impact interpretation	Evidence supports a bounded gender-equity conclusion

Adelphi boundary

Adelphi has one of the clearest documented-state relationships:

Adelphi is founded, owned, and operated by Yanny and Neury Hernández.

That is meaningful evidence of women-led ownership/operation. It is not by itself evidence that:

local gender inequality declined;
women across the community gained income;
decision power changed beyond the founders;
broader structural inequality was reduced.

SDG 8 — Decent Work and Economic Growth

Relevant Kokonut pathways

A farm may connect to SDG 8 through:

employment;
work quality;
safety;
skills;
continuity;
local enterprise;
realized economic activity.

Claim progression

Level	Example
Alignment	The farm intends to create locally rooted work
Activity / documented state	Worker roles exist; training and operations occur
Measured outcome	Compensation, duration, safety, retention, skill, and realized economic records exist
Impact interpretation	Evidence supports a bounded decent-work or economic-development conclusion

Evidence can include

role type;
start/end dates;
full-time / part-time / seasonal status;
compensation;
safety records;
training;
retention;
skill progression;
realized revenue;
local supplier/market records where relevant.

A job count is not a decent-work assessment. The quality, conditions, duration, safety, and compensation of work matter.

SDG 15 — Life on Land

Relevant Kokonut pathways

A farm may connect to SDG 15 through:

agroforestry;
vegetation;
soil protection;
habitat;
biodiversity;
nursery propagation;
native/at-risk species work;
erosion/land-cover management.

Claim progression

Level	Example
Alignment	The farm is designed around regenerative land management
Activity	Syntropic plots, nursery work, biochar, ground cover, or agroforestry are implemented
Measured outcome	Soil, vegetation, survival, habitat, species, or land-condition indicators are recorded
Impact interpretation	Evidence supports a bounded terrestrial-ecosystem conclusion

Evidence can include

species inventory;
nursery records;
planting/survival;
field observations;
soil measurements;
ground-cover records;
erosion observations;
remote-sensing indices;
repeat biodiversity/habitat surveys.

NDVI, NDRE, ReCI, MSAVI, species counts, biochar, or syntropic practices do not by themselves prove biodiversity restoration, soil recovery, or reduced land degradation.

Contextual SDGs: activate them only when the intervention is real

The remaining SDGs can be relevant, but the relationship should be earned project by project.

SDG	Potential pathway	Evidence that strengthens the relationship
3 — Good Health and Well-being	Worker safety, food access, wellbeing program	Safety/incident records, distribution/access evidence, appropriate health methodology
4 — Quality Education	Training, demonstrations, open learning	Curriculum, attendance, learning assessment, applied capability
6 — Clean Water and Sanitation	Water quality, runoff, watershed management	Water sampling, runoff/erosion monitoring, water-use/watershed records
7 — Affordable and Clean Energy	Solar/renewable energy, fuel/electricity transition	Energy baseline, generation, consumption, avoided fossil energy where methodologically justified
9 — Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure	Farm/data infrastructure, open technology, APIs	Operational assets, uptime, use, integrations, external reuse
10 — Reduced Inequalities	Access, distribution, participation, opportunity	Participant/beneficiary distribution, compensation/access and outcome evidence
11 — Sustainable Cities and Communities	Food/community/resilience systems where urban/community context supports the claim	Local-service, food-access, resilience, community-use evidence
12 — Responsible Consumption and Production	Input substitution, reuse, material flows, waste reduction	Procurement, input, waste, reuse, production, certification records
13 — Climate Action	Carbon/soil/biomass/resilience practices where methodology exists	Climate methodology, baseline, measurements, uncertainty, reporting period, review
14 — Life Below Water	Watershed/coastal effects where the farm has a relevant hydrological pathway	Water-quality, watershed, downstream/coastal evidence
16 — Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	Transparency, governance process, grievance/dispute mechanisms where relevant	Decision records, participation, dispute/audit evidence
17 — Partnerships for the Goals	Formal delivery partnerships, research, funding, open-source collaboration	Agreements, responsibilities, deliverables, contribution records, joint outputs

Do not force a relationship

Examples:

A farm without renewable-energy infrastructure should not claim SDG 7 because it uses less synthetic fertilizer.
A terrestrial inland farm should not claim SDG 14 merely because runoff exists in theory.
A public GitHub repository does not automatically establish SDG 9.
An on-chain governance process does not automatically establish SDG 16.
Listing a funder or collaborator does not by itself establish SDG 17 outcomes.

Goal-level alignment and target-level claims are different

An SDG is broad. Individual SDG targets and indicators are more specific. A report should not cite a specific target merely because the project is generally aligned with the Goal. Before using target-level language, document:

the exact target being referenced;
why the intervention is relevant to that target;
the farm/project boundary;
the metric or evidence;
reporting period;
limitations;
whether the statement is alignment, activity, measured outcome, or impact interpretation.

Goal-level relevance is not automatic target-level evidence.

How the Pillars and 8 Forms strengthen an SDG claim

The SDGs tell the reader which development lens is being used. The Pillars and 8 Forms help prevent that lens from becoming vague.

Pillars

For any SDG claim, ask:

WHAT changed?
WHO experienced it?
HOW MUCH changed and for how long?
What did the intervention CONTRIBUTE?
What RISK or uncertainty remains?
What PUBLIC GOODS were actually delivered, if relevant?

8 Forms of Capital

Use the 8 Forms to categorize the underlying value without treating them as interchangeable units. Examples:

SDG	Likely capital forms
SDG 1	Financial, Human, Social
SDG 2	Natural, Financial, Material, Health
SDG 5	Social, Human, Financial, Cultural
SDG 8	Human, Financial, Social, Health
SDG 15	Natural, Material, Intellectual

A single record can be relevant to multiple lenses. That does not make it multiple independent impacts.

A reusable SDG-claim record

For any material SDG statement, capture:

Field	Question
SDG	Which Goal is being referenced?
Target, if used	Which exact target?
Claim	What exactly is being asserted?
Claim level	Alignment, activity, measured outcome, or impact interpretation?
Farm / boundary	Which farm, plot, group, community, or system?
WHO	Who or what is affected?
Baseline	What was the starting condition, where relevant?
Intervention	What action is relevant to the Goal?
Metric / evidence	What is observed, counted, or measured?
Method	How was the metric produced?
Reporting period	What dates does the claim cover?
Actual vs. forecast	Is it observed performance or modeled?
Source	Which record/dataset supports it?
Review status	Draft, submitted, reviewed/verified, published?
Reviewer	Who performed the applicable review?
Contribution context	What other actors or conditions may explain the outcome?
Risk / uncertainty	What can weaken or reverse the claim?
Evidence pointer	Hub record, file, dataset, CID, attestation, report?
Next evidence	What would strengthen or falsify the claim?

This record is more useful than attaching an SDG icon to a proposal.

Adelphi: the current reference map

Adelphi currently uses five primary SDGs as its reference reporting set.

SDG	Strong current Adelphi claim	Current evidence class	Stronger claim still needs
1 — No Poverty	Seven jobs are documented; farm revenue/public-goods flows are modeled	Documented state + forecast	Compensation/income, realized revenue, actual allocations, beneficiary/household evidence
2 — Zero Hunger	Diversified food-production capacity across crops and poultry is documented	Implemented system + forecast	Harvest actuals, sales/distribution, affordability/access evidence
5 — Gender Equality	The farm is founded, owned, and operated by Yanny and Neury Hernández	Documented state	Broader participation, opportunity, compensation, income, decision-power and benefit-sharing evidence
8 — Decent Work	Seven jobs are documented and multiple skill/work domains exist	Documented state + program intent	Role type, duration, compensation, safety, retention, skill evidence
15 — Life on Land	Syntropic plots, nursery, biochar, ground cover, agroforestry and monitoring are documented	Implemented practice + measurement capability	Repeated soil, vegetation, biodiversity, survival, habitat and land-condition evidence

Secondary/contextual Adelphi relationships

Current documentation also identifies plausible contextual relationships including:

SDG 4 — Quality Education
SDG 12 — Responsible Consumption and Production
SDG 13 — Climate Action
SDG 17 — Partnerships for the Goals

Those should remain contextual until the corresponding evidence matures. Read the detailed Adelphi SDG evidence map →

What the calculator can and cannot do

The Impact Calculator uses the five current reference SDGs to help a user:

screen relevance;
identify scenario activities;
identify evidence gaps;
plan records.

It can reach:

alignment;
planning/activity signal;
evidence readiness.

It cannot generate:

measured outcomes;
verified SDG contribution;
poverty reduction;
food-security improvement;
gender-equity improvement;
decent-work certification;
biodiversity restoration;
quantified carbon impact.

Its statuses are planning tools.

SDG reporting over time

An SDG report should be a periodic evidence reconciliation, not a permanent badge. For each reporting period, review:

which SDGs are active;
which moved from alignment to activity;
which have measured outcomes;
which support an impact interpretation;
which forecasts were replaced with actuals;
which claims weakened or failed;
which evidence is missing;
which risks materialized;
which stakeholders received benefits or costs;
which Goals should be added, downgraded, or removed in the next period.

An SDG can move backward in reporting maturity. Stale data, failed interventions, changing conditions, weak evidence, or a revised methodology can require a claim to be narrowed.

Example: stronger SDG wording

Too broad

“The farm advances SDG 2 by improving food security.”

Better at activity level

“The farm operates a diversified food-production system relevant to SDG 2. Harvest and distribution outcomes are reported separately.”

Better with measured outcome

“During [reporting period], the farm recorded [actual harvest quantity] of [product], with [quantity] sold or distributed through [channel].”

Stronger interpretation only when supported

“For [defined population] during [reporting period], [defined food-access indicator] changed from [baseline] to [outcome] alongside the documented farm intervention. The interpretation is limited by [material limitations / other contributing factors].”

The language should become stronger only as the evidence becomes stronger.

Common failure modes

Failure mode	Better practice
“This farm contributes to all 17 SDGs.”	Activate only Goals with a credible intervention/evidence relationship
“The five reference SDGs apply automatically to every farm.”	Treat them as the current Adelphi/reference set; assess each future farm independently
“SDG alignment means verified contribution.”	Use the four-level claim ladder
“Seven jobs means SDG 1 was achieved.”	Report jobs; measure livelihood/poverty outcomes separately
“Food production means hunger decreased.”	Measure harvest, distribution, access, affordability, and target population
“Women-led means gender inequality decreased.”	Preserve women-led evidence; measure broader gender outcomes separately
“A job count proves decent work.”	Measure work quality, compensation, safety, continuity, and worker evidence
“Syntropic/biochar/nursery means SDG 15 impact.”	Measure soil, vegetation, biodiversity, habitat, and land condition
“Biochar/agroforestry means SDG 13 carbon impact.”	Use an appropriate climate/carbon methodology
“Reduced inputs means SDG 7.”	Require an actual energy pathway for clean-energy claims
“DAO transparency proves SDG 16.”	Use institutional/governance outcome evidence appropriate to the claim
“A partnership logo proves SDG 17.”	Document responsibilities, delivery, contributions, and joint outputs
“EAS verifies the SDG outcome.”	Use EAS for provenance; evidence/methodology support the outcome
“A dashboard value is current by definition.”	Check source, lifecycle state, reporting period, and freshness

How different readers should use the SDG layer

Farm operators

Choose only the Goals that match the farm’s real intervention and collect evidence as part of operations rather than after-the-fact marketing.

Impact & research reviewers

Check claim level, baseline, method, reporting period, stakeholder boundary, contribution context, uncertainty, and whether the SDG language exceeds the evidence.

Capital governance participants

Use SDG relevance as one decision input without treating an SDG label as proof of impact or as a substitute for budget, risk, authority, and execution review.

Guilds & contributors

Turn missing SDG evidence into bounded work across research, data, agronomy, documentation, community, finance, and review.

Partners & grant reviewers

Trace each development claim to a defined intervention, actual evidence, reporting period, limitations, and responsible reviewer.

Developers & agents

Treat SDG mappings as structured interpretations with evidence pointers and maturity states—not as autonomous impact scores.

Current maturity

Surface	Status	Interpretation
17-SDG screening map	Active Framework methodology	All Goals can be screened for relevance
Five-goal reference set	Active for Adelphi/current calculator	SDG 1, 2, 5, 8, 15; not mandatory verified outcomes for every farm
SDG 13 climate treatment	Secondary co-benefit	Stronger climate/carbon claims remain methodology-dependent
Adelphi SDG mapping	Active reference implementation	Evidence maturity differs by Goal
Target-level reporting	Evidence-dependent	Specific targets require explicit mapping and supporting evidence
SDG outcome verification	Methodology/evidence-dependent	SDG labels themselves do not verify outcomes
Cross-farm SDG comparison	Developing	Requires consistent boundaries, metrics, periods, semantics, and evidence
Automated SDG classification	Decision support / developing	Agents/software may screen and draft; appropriate review remains required

Continue through the Framework

Adelphi SDG Evidence

See the current five-goal reference set mapped to documented state, activity, evidence requirements, and claims that remain unverified.

Positive Impact Methodology

Apply alignment → activity → measured outcome → impact interpretation consistently across SDG claims.

Pillars of Value

Add WHAT, WHO, HOW MUCH, CONTRIBUTION, RISK, and PUBLIC GOODS to each development claim.

8 Forms of Capital

Categorize the underlying value without reducing unlike outcomes to one score.

MRV Methodology

Connect SDG interpretations to governed source records and the evidence lifecycle.

Impact Calculator

Use the current five-goal reference set for scenario planning and evidence readiness—not verified impact scoring.

The SDGs are most useful when they tell Kokonut what evidence to collect, what language is justified, and what still cannot be claimed.

​The SDGs help Kokonut organize development claims — they do not create the evidence.

See Adelphi's SDG evidence

Use the Positive Impact claim ladder

Plan the evidence

Model a scenario

​The SDG claim ladder

​The current five-goal reference set

​SDG 13 remains a climate co-benefit in the current reference model

​Primary, contextual, and inactive are reporting states — not permanent labels

​The 17-SDG Framework map

​Where SDGs sit inside the Kokonut Framework

​How SDG evidence should flow

​The current five reference SDGs

​SDG 1 — No Poverty

​Relevant Kokonut pathways

​Claim progression

​Evidence can include

​SDG 2 — Zero Hunger

​Relevant Kokonut pathways

​Claim progression

​Evidence can include

​SDG 5 — Gender Equality

​Relevant Kokonut pathways

​Claim progression

​Adelphi boundary

​SDG 8 — Decent Work and Economic Growth

​Relevant Kokonut pathways

​Claim progression

​Evidence can include

​SDG 15 — Life on Land

​Relevant Kokonut pathways

​Claim progression

​Evidence can include

​Contextual SDGs: activate them only when the intervention is real

​Do not force a relationship

​Goal-level alignment and target-level claims are different

​How the Pillars and 8 Forms strengthen an SDG claim

​Pillars

​8 Forms of Capital

​A reusable SDG-claim record

​Adelphi: the current reference map

​Secondary/contextual Adelphi relationships

​What the calculator can and cannot do

​SDG reporting over time

​Example: stronger SDG wording

​Too broad

​Better at activity level

​Better with measured outcome

​Stronger interpretation only when supported

​Common failure modes

​How different readers should use the SDG layer

Farm operators

Impact & research reviewers

Capital governance participants

Guilds & contributors

Partners & grant reviewers

Developers & agents

​Current maturity

​Continue through the Framework

Adelphi SDG Evidence

Positive Impact Methodology

Pillars of Value

8 Forms of Capital

MRV Methodology

Impact Calculator

The SDGs help Kokonut organize development claims — they do not create the evidence.

The SDG claim ladder

The current five-goal reference set

SDG 13 remains a climate co-benefit in the current reference model

Primary, contextual, and inactive are reporting states — not permanent labels

The 17-SDG Framework map

Where SDGs sit inside the Kokonut Framework

How SDG evidence should flow

The current five reference SDGs

SDG 1 — No Poverty

Relevant Kokonut pathways

Claim progression

Evidence can include

SDG 2 — Zero Hunger

Relevant Kokonut pathways

Claim progression

Evidence can include

SDG 5 — Gender Equality

Relevant Kokonut pathways

Claim progression

Adelphi boundary

SDG 8 — Decent Work and Economic Growth

Relevant Kokonut pathways

Claim progression

Evidence can include

SDG 15 — Life on Land

Relevant Kokonut pathways

Claim progression

Evidence can include

Contextual SDGs: activate them only when the intervention is real

Do not force a relationship

Goal-level alignment and target-level claims are different

How the Pillars and 8 Forms strengthen an SDG claim

Pillars

8 Forms of Capital

A reusable SDG-claim record

Adelphi: the current reference map

Secondary/contextual Adelphi relationships

What the calculator can and cannot do

SDG reporting over time

Example: stronger SDG wording

Too broad

Better at activity level

Better with measured outcome

Stronger interpretation only when supported

Common failure modes

How different readers should use the SDG layer

Current maturity

Continue through the Framework