THE WORLD, CONNECTED
DIRECTIONAL RELATIONSHIP · 2026

Sierra Leone → Ghana

This score represents Sierra Leone's relationship toward Ghana. The reverse direction is calculated separately and shown alongside it.

SLE → GHA+9Mixed54% evidence confidenceDocumented bilateral evidence
GHA → SLE+9MixedSymmetric current scores
SIX-COMPONENT MODEL

Current component scores

Component values run from −100 to +100 and are combined with the published weights.

Security0

No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.

Why this score?

The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.

Coverage gap: The reviewed record does not activate an additional frozen security rule for the 2015 baseline.

Diplomacy0

No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.

Why this score?

The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.

Coverage gap: The reviewed record does not activate an additional frozen bilateral diplomatic rule for the 2015 baseline.

Economic+15

1 documented factor produce the +15 economic assessment.

Why this score?
  1. +15Shared ECOWAS economic-integration framework
    Baseline rule · 2015

    Ghana and the counterpart participated in ECOWAS's standing trade, free-movement and economic-integration framework in 2015.

Alignment+40

2 documented factors produce the +40 alignment assessment.

Why this score?
  1. +10Shared ECOWAS regional framework
    Baseline rule · 2015

    Ghana and the counterpart participated in ECOWAS's standing regional framework for integration, peace and practical cooperation in 2015.

  2. +30United Nations voting alignment
    Baseline rule · 2015

    A rolling three-year comparison of UN General Assembly votes activates the alignment threshold.

Disputes0

No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.

Why this score?

The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.

Coverage gap: No qualifying frozen dispute or dispute-settlement rule is activated by the reviewed evidence.

Societal0

No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.

Why this score?

The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.

Coverage gap: The reviewed record does not establish the exceptional or strong exchange required by a frozen societal rule.

CHANGE SINCE 2015

+9 in 2015 → +9 in 2026

The change is generated from sourced events and frozen scoring rules, not retrospective editorial adjustment.

ACTIVE EVIDENCE

Events affecting the current score

No later scored event is active. The current result remains anchored to the reviewed 2015 baseline and quantitative series.

Interpret with care

This analytical score is not an objective fact, endorsement or prediction. Confidence reflects evidence coverage, while incomplete or unavailable observations remain explicit. Differences below 5 points are treated as practical ties rather than a meaningful ranking.

Explore the full timeline and sources in the atlas →