Independence of the judiciary from executive and legislative encroachment. Specifically captures court-packing, selective prosecution, judicial reshuffles.
Rule of law as institutional substrate — contract enforcement, judicial independence, equal treatment before the law. Upstream of most other axes.
New constitution replacing the amended 1989 constitution, adopted 25 April 2011 and effective 1 January 2012, together with the four subsequent amendments (June 2012, October 2012, December 2012, March 2013) that collectively restructured Hungary's institutional architecture. Key content: reduction of Constitutional Court powers over fiscal legislation (tax and budget laws largely excluded from review while public debt exceeds 50% of GDP); expansion of the Court from 11 to 15 judges elected by parliament's two-thirds majority (Fidesz-appointed majority secured); replacement of the Supreme Court (Legfelsőbb Bíróság) with the Kúria and dismissal of its president András Baka (ruled a violation by ECtHR 2016); creation of the National Judicial Office (OBH) with extensive case-allocation and appointment powers led by Tünde Handó (Orbán ally); reduction of judges' retirement age from 70 to 62 (ruled discriminatory by CJEU 2012, reversed with compensation); Fourth Amendment (March 2013) explicitly nullifying Constitutional Court decisions rendered before the Fundamental Law took effect and incorporating previously struck-down cardinal laws into constitutional text, drawing Venice Commission criticism June 2013.
Per invariant 3, reforms are scored by what they did on each channel-separated axis, not by the party that enacted them. This fingerprint is how the policy-match engine finds historical analogues.
Explicit links are curated by the author. Inferred links are hypotheses in the library that test the same axes this policy moved — the framework's answer to "what does the data say about a policy like this?".
Ranked by axis-fingerprint overlap with this policy. Direction match bolded — those are the closest historical analogues. Shape of the match is what drives policy-outcome comparison, not the country or party label.