This document compares legacy Vento band valuation with Proportional Harm Modelling (PHM) in civil redress matters involving multiple, interlocked breaches.
Purpose
This page sets out a formal legal comparison between legacy Vento band valuation and Proportional Harm Modelling (PHM) in civil redress matters involving multiple, interlocked breaches.
Its purpose is to demonstrate, with clarity and proportionality, how legacy valuation mechanisms structurally under-represent harm when applied to complex, systemic cases, and why PHM produces a materially more accurate valuation of civil injury.
Scope of Application
This analysis applies to civil matters where:
- More than one legal breach is present
- Breaches are procedurally or causally interlocked
- Harm escalates over time rather than occurring as a single event
- Institutional asymmetry or obstruction is present
- Legacy valuation mechanisms impose artificial caps on recovery
This includes (but is not limited to):
- Employment and discrimination claims
- Housing and utilities disputes
- Consumer and financial misconduct
- Public authority maladministration
Non-Isolation Principle
In complex civil litigation, a detected breach is rarely isolated.
Empirical review across multiple cases demonstrates that once a single breach is identified, further breaches are typically present, operating as a compound harm system rather than discrete incidents.
Accordingly, valuation mechanisms that assume isolated harm events are structurally misaligned with real-world civil injury.
Legacy Vento Band Framework
Vento bands operate as a precedent-based valuation regime with:
- Fixed monetary ranges
- No sensitivity to breach count
- No sensitivity to breach interlock
- No escalation for duration or retaliation
- No modelling of procedural obstruction
Vento bands therefore function as a flat, capped proxy, suitable only for low-complexity, single-axis harm.
They do not scale with systemic injury.
Proportional Harm Modelling (PHM)
PHM is a harm valuation methodology that calculates civil injury as a function of:
- Number of breaches
- Degree of breach interlock
- Duration of harm exposure
- Power and resource asymmetry
- Retaliatory or obstructive conduct
- Procedural denial or delay
PHM produces a true equilibrium valuation of harm prior to any procedural or compatibility adjustment.
Degradation Principle (PHM → Vento)
Where courts require compatibility with legacy regimes, PHM valuations are intentionally downgraded to Vento-compatible figures.
This is a procedural concession, not a validation of Vento accuracy.
The downgrade preserves admissibility while exposing the scale of harm suppression inherent in legacy systems.
Comparative Valuation Table
| Breach Cluster | Breach Count | Interlock Level | Vento Band Applied | Vento £ Value | PHM Baseline £ | PHM Multiplier | PHM True £ Value | Vento : PHM Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster A | 4–5 | Low | Lower | £11,700 | £40,000 | ×3.0 | £120,000 | 1 : 10.3 |
| Cluster B | 10–12 | Medium | Middle | £35,200 | £120,000 | ×6.5 | £780,000 | 1 : 22.1 |
| Cluster C | 16–18 | High | Upper | £58,700 | £210,000 | ×11.4 | £2,394,000 | 1 : 40.8 |
| Cluster D (Systemic) | 30+ | Critical | Upper (Capped) | £58,700 | £420,000 | ×27.6 | £11,592,000 | 1 : 197.5 |
Note: Vento valuation remains static irrespective of escalation. PHM scales proportionally with harm reality.
Ratio Interpretation
The Vento-to-PHM ratio demonstrates the degree of harm suppression imposed by legacy valuation.
As breach density and interlock increase, Vento valuation remains capped while PHM escalates proportionally. This evidences that Vento does not merely undervalue harm it systematically erases compound injury.
Judicial Compatibility Statement
PHM valuations are degraded to Vento-compatible figures solely to satisfy procedural familiarity and precedent constraints.
This degradation does not invalidate PHM. It highlights the limitations of legacy valuation frameworks when applied to modern, systemic civil harm.
Application to Live Matters
In current matters involving 30 or more interlocked breaches, PHM valuation reflects compound escalation, institutional asymmetry, and prolonged procedural harm.
Legacy Vento valuation reflects only a capped proxy and does not represent the true scale of injury.
The disparity between the two is evidential, not speculative.
Conclusion
Where multiple breaches interlock, legacy valuation mechanisms are structurally incapable of representing civil harm.
PHM provides a proportional, scalable, and legally intelligible valuation model. Vento bands may remain as a compatibility layer, but cannot be treated as an accurate measure of systemic injury.