🔬 6 Cross-Covenant Structural Findings

Issues invisible to single covenants are entry points for joint advocacy

This page condenses the core findings from Wave 100-130 cross-platform analysis. Each structural finding is a "should-appear-but-missing" gap in government discourse, surfaced only by cross-referencing 102,728 segments across 3 platforms. Click any PI chip to jump to the scorecard + action plan for that issue.

♀⚙Finding 1: Disabled women — invisible in CRPD documents

🔴 critical

Violates CEDAW GR-18 + CRPD Article 6

CEDAW
190 segments
CRC
3 segments
CRPD
0 segments
🔗 Mapped PI: CRPD PI-17📄 brief
🌐 Intl GR / CO: CEDAW GR-18 (1991) · CRPD §6 · CRPD GC-3 (2016)

⚠Finding 2: Domestic violence absent from CRPD

🟠 severe

Disabled women's intersectional violence has no government discourse

CEDAW
459 segments
CRC
515 segments
CRPD
1 segments
🔗 Mapped PI: CRPD PI-17📄 briefCEDAW PI-05
🌐 Intl GR / CO: CEDAW GR-19 · CEDAW GR-35 · CRPD §16

🔧Finding 3: "Reasonable accommodation" paradox

🟠 severe

CRPD's flagship concept appears 7× in CRPD docs vs 173 in CRC and 100 in CEDAW

CEDAW
20 segments
CRC
29 segments
CRPD
7 segments
🔗 Mapped PI: CRPD PI-12
🌐 Intl GR / CO: CRPD §2 · CRPD §5

🌈Finding 4: SOGIESC: 100× concentration in CEDAW

🔴 critical

LGBTI/gender-identity discourse overwhelmingly framed within women's rights, not children's or disability

CEDAW
1403 segments
CRC
362 segments
CRPD
0 segments
🔗 Mapped PI: CRPD PI-18📄 briefCEDAW PI-21CRC PI-14📄 brief
🌐 Intl GR / CO: Yogyakarta Principles+10 · CRPD §5

⌘Finding 5: Disabled indigenous: total invisibility

🔴 critical

0 segments across all 3 covenants — triple-disadvantage population unrecognized

CEDAW
0 segments
CRC
1 segments
CRPD
0 segments
🔗 Mapped PI: CRPD PI-19📄 briefCEDAW PI-15📄 brief
🌐 Intl GR / CO: CEDAW GR-39 §54-58 · CRPD §4.3 + §11 · UNDRIP §21-23

☻♀Finding 6: LGBTQI+ children: low across all covenants

🔴 critical

CEDAW 2 / CRC 1 / CRPD 0 — sensitive intersection lacks systematic government framing

CEDAW
0 segments
CRC
1 segments
CRPD
0 segments
🔗 Mapped PI: CRC PI-14📄 briefCEDAW PI-26CRPD PI-18📄 brief
🌐 Intl GR / CO: CRC GC-22 · Yogyakarta Principles+10
📐 Severity grading rule:
🔴 critical = lowest-platform 0 segments (complete structural blind spot) · 🟠 severe = 1-9 segments (high deficit) · 🟡 deficit = 10-50 segments (moderate deficit) · — noted = 50+ segments (baseline discourse exists)