KERALA RISING · FROM EXPORTING PEOPLE TO EXPORTING IDEAS The lines the institution does not cross Some commitments are stated as prohibitions because that is the clearest form they can take. The institution does not adjudicate penalties, enforcement, in road safety and everywhere else, stays with the existing authority, so participation never carries a downside. It does not display an individual’s clinical data, ever, in any program. It does not surface religious, caste, or political affiliation in any ranking, because a leaderboard that becomes a proxy for communal or partisan competition would do more harm than the program does good. It does not sell personal data; the data products it builds are constructed on the aggregated, de-identified public corpus. And it does not retain personal identifiers beyond the program’s need for them. These are not aspirations to be balanced against growth; they are fixed limits, written alongside the seven governance commitments of Chapter 15. Equity, and the digital divide The most serious ethical risk is not surveillance; it is capture by the already-advantaged. A naive reward program would hand its points to the households with the best phones and the most time, widening the very gaps a public institution exists to close. The design answers this in three concrete ways. Leaderboards rank on participation rate rather than 295