Help us land the labels
We’ve iterated on cluster names. Tell us which version lands.
Three naming frames have been considered for the four city clusters. We’re testing which lands best with city staff before locking the final names. Two short rounds; about 5 minutes.
Active round: Cluster naming · rounds 1–2 · open since June 2026
When a round closes, we publish what respondents said and what changed as a result — right here and in the changelog. Your input lands somewhere visible.
Context · not under evaluation
Cluster C — Anchor-Dependent
A university, hospital system, or military base anchors more than half of the local economy. Innovation capacity lives mostly inside the anchor, not city hall. The work is alignment between municipal strategy and anchor capacity.
Unchanged across all three framings — shown here for context so you’re comparing apples to apples.
Round 1 of 2
Between two earlier framings, which lands better?
Both of these were considered and rejected on the way to the current set. We want to confirm we made the right call.
Frame 1 · Original
Innovation Vanguard
High institutional capacity, strong GovTech, data-driven governance operational. Sustaining innovation momentum through leadership transitions and post-ARPA fiscal tightening.
Fiscally Constrained
Structural revenue problems, limited/no innovation infrastructure, high poverty. Basic fiscal survival and service delivery.
Frame 2 · Structural-state proposal
Internally Resourced
Cities with broad institutional capacity across all six dimensions — innovation infrastructure is in place internally, not dependent on anchors or external partners.
Externally Resourced
Cities where innovation runs through philanthropy, federal pass-through dollars, and regional coalitions — the resource model is real, but it lives outside the municipal balance sheet.
Cluster B · unchanged between these two framings
Capacity-Building Sweet Spot
Moderate capacity, clear growth trajectory, new/energetic leadership, some innovation assets but not systematized. Gap between leadership ambition and institutional tooling.
Between Frame 1 and Frame 2, which works better?