Evidence Register

safety_danger_now (v0.1.0 · sensitivity high)

Question: Are you in danger right now, or is someone hurting or threatening you?

Evidence: Emergency Severity Index triage concept: danger routes to live help before any assessment

Reason kept: Routes emergencies out of assessment and into response; workflow only, never allocation.

Alternatives considered: Fold into the fleeing-violence question — rejected: Danger-now and leaving-a-situation are different facts with different responses.

Known risks: None identified beyond general disclosure sensitivity.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

safety_medical_now (v0.1.0 · sensitivity high)

Question: Do you need medical help right now for something serious?

Evidence: ESI triage: urgent medical need outranks everything

Reason kept: A bleeding head wound must beat every housing question. Added after an internal review found the gap.

Alternatives considered: Rely on assessor judgment — rejected: Self-administered mode has no assessor.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

safety_fleeing_violence (v0.2.0 · sensitivity high)

Question: Are you leaving, or trying to leave, a situation where someone is hurting you, scaring you, or making you do things you do not want to do?

Evidence: HUD Trauma-Informed Care guidance p.7: behavior-based wording outperforms label-based; HUD PIT GBV fact sheet: covers DV, sexual assault, stalking, trafficking without requiring self-identification as a victim

Reason kept: Category 4 gateway and safety routing.

Alternatives considered: "Are you fleeing domestic violence?" — rejected: Label-based; misses trafficking and people who do not name their experience violence.

Known risks: Disclosure in unsafe company; mitigated by ask-privately hint, skippability, quick exit.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

living_situation (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Where are you staying tonight?

Evidence: 24 CFR 578.3 qualifying situations

Reason kept: Gateway fact for HUD category, chronicity present-tense test, and exposure-based support rules.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

housing_trajectory (v0.1.0 · sensitivity moderate)

Question: Just before this, where were you living?

Evidence: Institutional-discharge pathway literature; CMS discharge planning concept

Reason kept: Distinguishes eviction, institutional exit, and other entries; drives transition supports and moderate signal.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

months_since_permanent_housing (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: About how many months has it been since you had a permanent place of your own?

Evidence: HMIS 3.917 structure

Reason kept: Cross-checks episode dates; contradiction prevention.

Known risks: Recall error; tolerated with 1-2 month slack in cross-checks.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

episode_start (v0.2.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: About when did this current period of staying on the streets, in a shelter, or somewhere not meant for living start?

Evidence: 24 CFR 578.3 continuous-episode criterion; HMIS 3.917 partial-month rule

Reason kept: Continuous-pathway chronicity arithmetic, shown to the person.

Alternatives considered: Exact date entry — rejected: Month/year approximation matches how people remember; exact dates create false precision.

Known risks: Recall error; approximate by design.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

occasions_3yr (v0.2.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: In the past three years, how many separate times have you stayed on the streets, in an emergency shelter, or somewhere not meant for living, including now?

Evidence: 24 CFR 578.3 episodic criterion (4 occasions / 12 months / 3 years); HUD FAQ 2752: no minimum occasion length

Reason kept: Episodic-pathway chronicity.

Known risks: Occasion counting is genuinely hard; cross-checks catch impossible combinations without blaming.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

months_homeless_3yr (v0.2.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Adding it all together, about how many months in the past three years have you stayed on the streets, in an emergency shelter, or somewhere not meant for living?

Evidence: 24 CFR 578.3; 80 FR 75791 break rules (7+ nights housed incl. doubled-up)

Reason kept: Cumulative chronicity months and exposure input to support rules.

Alternatives considered: "Time without your own housing" — rejected: Would have counted doubled-up time toward chronicity, inflating determinations. Caught pre-pilot; on the public changelog.

Known risks: Recall error.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

household_adults (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: How many adults, including you, are in your household right now?

Evidence: Household composition drives program eligibility

Reason kept: Household sizing for options discussion.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

household_children (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: How many children under 18 are with you right now?

Evidence: McKinney-Vento education rights; family program eligibility

Reason kept: Family supports and education-definition note.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

children_elsewhere (v0.1.0 · sensitivity moderate)

Question: Do you have children under 18 who are not staying with you right now?

Evidence: Family reunification practice

Reason kept: Offer-only reunification support. Excluded from the printable header (minimum necessary).

Alternatives considered: Ask custody details — rejected: Invasive; no determination needs it.

Known risks: Highly sensitive; never printed, offer-only.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

age_category (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Which age group are you in?

Evidence: Accelerated-aging literature in homeless cohorts (geriatric conditions ~20 years early)

Reason kept: Age 60+ while homeless floors HIGH (SN-R6); youth pathway (18-24) for TH discussion.

Alternatives considered: Exact age — rejected: Categories suffice for every rule; exact age is more identifying. · Threshold 50 — deferred: Would floor a very large share HIGH, diluting the band; assigned to clinical review.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

military_service (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Have you ever served in the United States military?

Evidence: Veteran-dedicated resource system (SSVF, HUD-VASH, HCHV)

Reason kept: Gateway to a parallel resource system; asked of everyone.

Alternatives considered: Discharge-status detail — rejected: Eligibility detail belongs to the VA conversation, not a universal screen.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

income_any (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Do you have any money coming in right now, from any source?

Evidence: HUD CE Equity Initiative: income items carry differential-disclosure bias

Reason kept: RRH program-fit discussion ONLY. Excluded from the vulnerability construct entirely; a test suite proves it cannot change any determination.

Alternatives considered: Use income in support-need — rejected: Not vulnerability; disclosure bias; CPD-17-01 II.B.4 adjacency.

Known risks: Perceived as gatekeeping if misused; the screening-out suite is the guard.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

housing_worked_before (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Was there ever a time when you had housing that worked well for you for six months or longer?

Evidence: Strengths-based assessment practice; protective-factor identification (SAMHSA trauma-informed principles)

Reason kept: The one question that asks what already works. Feeds support planning display and a build-on-what-worked offer (SS-R18) only; never prioritization. Replaced employment_any, whose program-fit signal income_any already carries.

Alternatives considered: Keep employment_any alongside it — rejected: Question budget; employment was redundant with income for every rule that read it.

Known risks: A no answer could feel discouraging; help text frames the question as optional and blame-free.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

natural_support (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Is there anyone you could safely stay with tonight if the right help were available?

Evidence: Diversion/problem-solving practice: a safe support tonight changes the conversation

Reason kept: Diversion discussion trigger; isolation as moderate support signal.

Known risks: "Safe" is subjective; wording asks about tonight, concretely.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

functional_support_need (v0.2.0 · sensitivity moderate)

Question: If you had housing tomorrow, would you need regular help from another person to keep it, such as managing bills, medications, appointments, or everyday tasks?

Evidence: Supportive-housing practice: in-home support need predicts housing sustainment

Reason kept: Housing-sustainment construct (SN-R7). Concrete capability question, never a diagnosis. Fair-housing guardrail in the rule statement: plans support, never limits housing choice.

Alternatives considered: ADL/IADL battery — open: More precise but costs questions; construct-scope decision pending owner + clinical review.

Known risks: Could be misread as independence screening; guarded in statement, docs, and tests.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

crisis_contacts_6mo (v0.2.0 · sensitivity moderate)

Question: In the past six months, about how many times have you been to an emergency room or had another crisis-related visit?

Evidence: Frequent-user literature: high ED utilization marks unmet need and elevated mortality; CPD-16-11 severity factor

Reason kept: High-utilizer signal (SN-R8 at 4+; moderate at 1+); also drives health-care-connection soft support.

Alternatives considered: Threshold 3 — rejected: Too sensitive; 1-3 in six months is within ordinary range for unsheltered life. · Threshold 5-6 — rejected: Self-report undercounts; too specific.

Known risks: PROXY RISK, explicitly tracked: ER access differs by community (rural distance, urgent-care substitution, immigration-related avoidance). Fairness monitoring (VALIDATION_PLAN section 8) tests exactly this; threshold is policy-editable per CoC.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

health_cold_injury (v0.2.0 · sensitivity high)

Question: Have you ever needed medical care because you could not get warm, like frostbite or hypothermia?

Evidence: Hwang 1998 (JAMA): cold-injury history OR ~8 for mortality among homeless adults

Reason kept: Strongest single mortality marker available by self-report (SN-R1 floors HIGH).

Alternatives considered: "Ever ... frostbite" unscoped — replaced: A mountaineering frostbite is not homelessness risk; v0.2.0 scopes to 'because you could not get warm'. · 12-month window — rejected: The evidence base is lifetime cold-injury history; recency scoping would discard the validated marker.

Known risks: Coachable binary; mitigation is assessor practice (no leading), never documentation demands.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

health_overdose_year (v0.2.0 · sensitivity high)

Question: In the past 12 months, did you get emergency help, or did someone have to revive you, after drinking or using drugs?

Evidence: Overdose is a leading cause of death in homeless cohorts; SAMHSA Overdose Prevention Toolkit

Reason kept: Active mortality risk (SN-R2 floors HIGH); triggers naloxone and treatment-access offers, never barriers.

Alternatives considered: Lifetime window — rejected: Punishes recovery; recency tracks active risk. · "emergency help" alone — replaced: Lay naloxone from a friend is often not counted as emergency help; v0.2.0 adds 'someone have to revive you'.

Known risks: Disclosure fear despite never-a-barrier framing; help text states it plainly.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

health_suicide_attempt_year (v0.1.0 · sensitivity high)

Question: In the past 12 months, have you tried to end your life?

Evidence: Prior attempt is the strongest single predictor of suicide death; NIMH ASQ: asking directly is safe and recommended

Reason kept: Active mortality risk (SN-R3 floors HIGH); pairs with follow-up + trusted-person offer (SAMHSA SAFE-T concept), 988 in help text, acute-vs-history note on results.

Alternatives considered: Euphemism ("hurt yourself") — rejected: NIMH guidance: direct wording is safer and clearer; euphemisms conflate self-harm and attempts.

Known risks: Emotional weight; asked late, privately, skippable, never printed.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

barrier_active_eviction (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Is there an eviction case against you in court right now?

Evidence: Legal-aid outcome literature: representation changes eviction outcomes

Reason kept: Triggers legal-aid offer; never gates anything (evictions are a banned screening factor).

Known risks: None; screening-out suite guards.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

barrier_missing_id (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Do you have an ID card or other identity documents with you or somewhere you can get them?

Evidence: Field practice: documents block program entry and leases

Reason kept: Document-recovery offer; practical unblocking.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

imminent_housing_loss (v0.1.0 · sensitivity low)

Question: Are you about to lose the place you are staying within the next two weeks?

Evidence: 24 CFR 576.2 Category 2 (14-day imminent loss)

Reason kept: Category 2 gateway; same-day reassessment trigger; prevention/diversion discussion.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

disabling_condition (v0.1.0 · module: Chronicity documentation · sensitivity high)

Question: Do you have a condition that is expected to be long-lasting and makes it harder to live on your own? You do not need to say what it is.

Evidence: 24 CFR 578.3 chronicity requires a disabling condition

Reason kept: Statutory chronicity element; asked only when chronicity is live (module gate), yes/no only, never which condition (II.B.12.f).

Alternatives considered: Condition type detail — rejected: Forced diagnosis disclosure is prohibited and unnecessary.

Known risks: None with yes/no form.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

inst_stay_length (v0.1.0 · module: About the facility stay · sensitivity moderate)

Question: How long have you been in the facility so far?

Evidence: 80 FR 75791: institutional stays under 90 days with qualifying entry continue the episode; 90+ breaks it

Reason kept: Resolves chronicity and Category 1 through institutional stays.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

inst_prior_situation (v0.1.0 · module: About the facility stay · sensitivity moderate)

Question: Just before entering, were you staying on the streets, in an emergency shelter, or somewhere not meant for living?

Evidence: Same Federal Register rule: what came immediately before the facility decides everything

Reason kept: Companion fact to stay length.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

inst_discharge_soon (v0.1.0 · module: About the facility stay · sensitivity moderate)

Question: Do you expect to leave this facility within the next few days?

Evidence: CMS 42 CFR 482.43 discharge planning; round-3 external review

Reason kept: Plan-before-discharge urgency trigger (RA-R8). Deliberately does NOT change the band while inside: exposure model integrity.

Alternatives considered: Raise band before discharge — rejected: Mortality inside a facility is a different construct; the urgency flag prompts action without corrupting the model.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

dv_provider_pref (v0.1.0 · module: Support preferences · sensitivity high)

Question: Would you feel more comfortable working with an advocate who helps people leaving unsafe situations?

Evidence: CPD-17-01 II.B.10; HUD CE and Victim Service Providers FAQs: survivor chooses the process

Reason kept: Consent-based routing; routing is offered, never automatic.

Alternatives considered: Automatic VSP routing on any disclosure — rejected: Removes survivor choice; HUD guidance requires the person to choose. · "Either" as third option — replaced: HUD guidance frames it as both-together; 'either' read as no-preference.

Known risks: None beyond disclosure context.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27

housing_worked_factor (v0.2.0 · module: What worked before · sensitivity low)

Question: Looking back, what made it possible for you to stay housed?

Evidence: Strengths-based planning: the ingredients of past stability are the best predictor-free blueprint for the next plan

Reason kept: Names the single biggest ingredient of past stable housing; printed on the card so the next plan starts from it. Display only.

Alternatives considered: Multi-select of all factors — deferred: Single strongest factor is more actionable; multi-select UI is not yet built. · Free-text 'what made it work' — rejected: Free text cannot be deterministic or translated; the choice list covers the common ingredients with an Other.

Known risks: None identified.

Review status: pending external review · last updated 2026-07-27