Abstract

Normative systems—legal, institutional, and social—have traditionally been described and compared using exclusively qualitative concepts such as freedom, coercion, rigidity, or openness. Despite their centrality, these features have rarely been subjected to direct quantitative analysis, largely due to the absence of an agreed-upon unit of measurement. This paper proposes a minimal methodological framework for quantifying normative structure through the empirical analysis of foundational legal texts. Instead of interpreting norms in a doctrinal or theoretical manner, the proposal treats them as countable structural elements, suitable for large-scale comparative analysis using contemporary computational tools. The paper does not advance a substantive theory of normativity. Its sole aim is to demonstrate that a transition from descriptive evaluation to measurement is now technically and conceptually possible. Constitutional texts are identified as a particularly suitable substrate due to their stability, accessibility, and relative independence from contingent regulatory detail. No empirical results are presented. The contribution of this paper consists in articulating a research program and inviting others to test, refine, or falsify it. If successful, this approach may open a previously unexplored quantitative dimension in the study of normative orders. In Version 2, a supplementary section has been added reporting the results of a limited methodological trial, included solely to illustrate the operational viability of the proposed metrics and the sources of model divergence.