Methodology for the Ayd Mill Road Decay Timeline
This page documents how the companion Ayd Mill Road pothole and decay dataset is built. It exists so any Minnesota driver, lawyer, or journalist who cites the timeline can see the sources, the verification steps, and the quality-control procedure behind every row.
Scope note: The example data is Ayd Mill Road specific, but the methodology applies to any Minnesota road-surface decay record. Treat this as a reusable template for documenting corridor conditions statewide.
Overview
What This Methodology Covers
This document describes the process behind the Ayd Mill Road pothole and road decay timeline: where the raw data comes from, how we normalize mixed record formats, how each event is scored for decay severity, how events are grouped by time period, and how we verify a row before publication.
The purpose is transparency, not promotion. A timeline is only useful if readers can audit it, and that audit only works if the rules for inclusion are written down alongside the data. That is this page.
Process
Six-Step Build Process
Source identification
We pull from four source categories: MnDOT pavement condition reports for the adjacent highway network, City of Saint Paul Public Works records (corridor studies and repair work orders), Ramsey County public data, and time-stamped imagery from published local reporting. Each source category is documented in the data-sources table below.
Public-records request sequence
When a source is not already public, we file a data-practices request under Minn. Stat. §§ 13.03 (public inspection of government data) and, where law-enforcement or accident data is involved, Minn. Stat. § 13.82. Request sequence: agency of record first, then the custodian department, with follow-up at the 10-business-day mark. We log request numbers and response dates alongside the records they return.
Normalization
Raw records arrive in mixed formats: PDF corridor studies, CSV work-order exports, JPEG imagery, plain-text ticket logs. Normalization converts each record into a row with five required fields — date, event type, source category, source record identifier, and a free-text observation. Records that cannot be anchored to a dated source record are not normalized. They are archived separately and excluded from the published timeline.
Decay-scoring rubric
Each event is scored on three dimensions: severity (cosmetic / structural / failure), scope (single defect / segment cluster / corridor-wide), and persistence (one-cycle / multi-cycle / unresolved). Scores are categorical, not numeric — we do not invent a false precision. A multi-cycle structural defect is a different kind of evidence than a single-cycle cosmetic one, and the rubric keeps that distinction legible to readers.
Temporal bucketing
Events are grouped into annual buckets anchored to the Minnesota freeze-thaw calendar rather than to strict calendar years. A bucket runs from the first sustained freeze of one winter to the first sustained freeze of the next, because pavement stress clusters around that cycle. Events that straddle a boundary are tagged to both buckets and noted in the row's observation field.
Quality-control pass
Before a row is published, it passes three QC gates: source-record verification (the underlying record exists and is retrievable), classification verification (severity, scope, and persistence scores were applied consistently against prior rows), and cross-source corroboration (where a second source exists, the row is checked against it). A row that fails any gate is marked pending verification rather than published as final.
Inputs
Data Sources Used
| Source category | What it provides | Request path |
|---|---|---|
| MnDOT pavement condition reports | Surface-condition ratings for the adjacent state highway network and freeze-thaw cycle data. | Public — MnDOT open data portal. |
| City of Saint Paul Public Works records | Corridor studies, repair work orders, and patch-repair activity on Ayd Mill Road itself. | Public records request under Minn. Stat. § 13.03 where not already published. |
| Ramsey County public data | County-level road-condition data and any cross-jurisdictional repair coordination. | Public — county open data and direct request as needed. |
| Time-stamped imagery | Dated photographs and published documentary imagery from established Twin Cities reporting. | Public — cited to original outlet with publication date. |
| Aerial survey data | When available, aerial imagery that shows corridor-wide surface condition across a single moment in time. | Public aerial survey providers; cited to the survey date. |
Pillar I in Action
Why Transparency Is a Forensic-Foundation Requirement
This methodology page is Pillar I of the Andrade Method made visible. Pillar I — the forensic-evidence stage — turns on whether the physical record can withstand defense scrutiny. A dataset that cannot be audited fails that test. A dataset that can be audited, and whose rules for inclusion and exclusion are published in the same place as the data itself, survives it.
That is why this page exists at the same tier as the timeline it documents. The dataset and the methodology are one artifact split into two URLs for readability. Together they form a single piece of evidence-preservation discipline the firm can point to in a demand letter, in a deposition, or on the stand.
Adjacent forensic-foundation work runs on the same transparency rule: see the MnDOT traffic camera preservation protocol for the parallel discipline applied to time-limited video evidence, and the St. Paul motor vehicle crash heatmap and injury patterns dataset for the geographic counterpart to this corridor-specific timeline.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Methodology
How do I verify a specific row in the dataset? +
Each published row carries a source record identifier. Use it to retrieve the underlying record directly from the issuing agency — a Saint Paul Public Works work-order number, a MnDOT report reference, or the publication date and outlet for a piece of time-stamped imagery. If you cannot retrieve the record, the row should not be treated as verified and we want to hear about it.
Can I apply this methodology to a different Minnesota corridor? +
Yes. The six-step process and the data-sources table are written as a reusable template. Substitute the relevant city Public Works department for Saint Paul, adjust the MnDOT report scope to cover the corridor in question, and keep the same decay-scoring rubric and freeze-thaw temporal bucketing. The method is designed to be corridor-agnostic.
What happens when a source record is reclassified or retracted? +
The dependent row on the companion timeline is reopened and re-run through the QC pass. If the record no longer supports the row, the row is removed and the change is noted in the timeline's freshness footer. We do not silently delete history.
Do I need to follow a public-records request sequence before using this data in a claim? +
You do not need to re-pull public records that are already published. You do need to preserve whatever evidence is specific to your own incident — scene photographs, dashcam video, medical records, vehicle damage documentation — on your own timeline. The dataset supports a claim. It does not replace the claim-specific evidence your case turns on.