GAD / 2026
GAD Ranking Methodology: Evidence, Weights & Independence
Explore the six-dimension GAD annual ranking framework, the Chinese-architecture dimension and the separately scoped Study Index pilot.
| Dimension | Practices | People | Chinese architecture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Representative works & spatial quality | 30 | 30 | 25 |
| Originality & research contribution | 20 | 25 | 15 |
| Built outcomes & use | 20 | 15 | 15 |
| Verified professional recognition | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Environmental & public value | 15 | 15 | 10 |
| Sustained practice & contribution | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Chinese architectural culture & contemporary interpretation | — | — | 20 |
Evidence before a position
Each annual assessment requires at least three verified built works, and an individual must have a documented role. The specialist Chinese-architecture track requires at least two relevant built works. A complete score needs a 0–5 assessment, a reason and traceable sources for every weighted dimension. Missing evidence is recorded as unknown and excludes a final score; it is never treated as zero or removed from the weighting.
Weighted total = Σ(dimension score × weight ÷ 5). The anchors are 1 limited, 2 basic, 3 developed, 4 strong and 5 exceptional within the reviewed sample; zero requires evidence of poor performance. Site photography alone cannot establish performance in use, client satisfaction or environmental outcomes. The proposed annual observation window is 2016–2025, with earlier works as context.
Comparable candidates, transparent judgment
Before an annual global 100 is published, the qualified candidate pool must exceed 100 and record regional coverage, source language, individual roles and conflicts of interest. Equal scores share a position. Sensitivity to alternative weights must be reported before final annual publication. Awards are deduplicated by work and attribution; founder recognition is not assigned to every practice project.
The first published series has a narrower purpose
The Study Index below evaluates the usefulness of ten selected practices for source-based comparative learning. It uses a separate three-dimension rubric and historical examples; it is not the six-dimension annual design-quality score or a worldwide census. This is an AI-assisted GAD editorial pilot, without an external jury, site visits or product-style user ratings. Sources support the project facts; the assessment remains an editorial opinion.
Commercial products & corrections
Payment cannot change editorial scores, ties or eligibility. Paid features and category sponsorships must be visibly labelled Sponsored. Corrections and evidence submissions are free: write to contact@gad.design with the record, original source and the requested correction. No practice has purchased a position in this pilot.