Range 0–10. null when intensity could not be established — never a fabricated 0.
It is not a body count
The log-fatality scale has the deepest academic pedigree here, so it is usually explained first — which
misleads, because it is the path our data uses least. In a 59-event sample from our own corpus the coder
chose the conflict path zero times: 34 economic, 14 hazard, 11 verbal.
magnitude asks one question — how intense was this, for its own type? — and answers it on whichever of
four ladders fits. The coder picks the path first and records why.
Formula
Only the conflict path is arithmetic. The other three are ladders the coder places the event on.
Compare magnitude within a domain, not across. A 7 on the verbal ladder and a 7 on the hazard ladder are
not the same claim. To rank across domains use significance, which is family-scoped for exactly this reason.
Grounding
Richardson’s Statistics of Deadly Quarrels (1960) established that conflict severity is read on a
log-fatality scale rather than a linear one. The 0–10 framing follows the Center for Systemic Peace’s MEPV
conflict-magnitude scale; the 25 and 1,000-death thresholds come from UCDP/COW. Our adaptation: the
anchors are re-derived from our own event distribution, and the three non-conflict ladders are ours — those
sources address armed conflict only.
Worked example — hazard path
Nationwide power grid blackout in Havana · INFRASTRUCTURE · 18 articles
No deaths were reported, so the conflict formula never applies — and the event is plainly severe. That is
what the other three paths exist for.
Stability
Measured run-to-run noise is ±0.36, so the smallest defensible difference is 0.72. Almost all of that
instability sits on the verbal path — see Limits. 
