This is great stuff - one picture really is worth a thousand words. Some picky points and questions on the FTM graph at the top:

* I may be missing something but how does the state-owned company give the Company dividiends? There are probably some set ups (Statoil?) in which the flow is that way round. But aren't there many in which the Company is still prime contractor, the SOC is in the consortium, and therefore the dividend flow is the other way - from Company to SOC? Chad (SHT and Glencore) would be an example. Depending on the terms of the carry, there might simultaneously be an arrow from SOC to Company for cash calls...

* Company -> Services -> Citizens. Does this cover Local Content, or contract-specified services (such as training?). If it does I'm not sure if it should as I don't think to describe those kinds of activities as services would give most people a misleading impression... If on the other hand it is CSR, I think it is worth adding in the term CSR. I know this depends to some extent on how you are placing the graphic and I can see there is a very rigorous focus on accessibility... nevertheless I believe that most people looking at a graphic like this in detail are specialists to some extent and therefore changing the label to "Services (CSR)" would add rather than detract from overall comprehension.

* Is the term "Local Government" designed to capture both national and sub-national governments? If so I believe it complicates a little... of course there are various sub-national arrangements but in most cases they are materially marginal to overall flows and it places too much emphasis on it. If not, I would suggest removing the word local as a distraction... so the label would just read "Government".

* Trading Partners. The more work we as a transparency community do, the more it becomes clear that huge amounts of illicit, or undesirable, revenue flows are bound up in relations between Company and SOC with Trading Partners. Given that this is FTM, I suggest that you could add one or two small boxes beneath both to start to refer to this - without adding to overall complexity too much. For example, below Company, split into two boxes such as "Affiliated Suppliers" and "Arms Length Suppliers" - this therefore locates abusive transfer pricing right on the map (just as the two stage Dividends -> Dividends locates BO as an issue). 

In general, this is great - and I know how much thought goes into one diagram so many thanks!

Johnny West

Jed, this is great. Not only because it reduces complexity, but it also creates a unified language. Countries make commitments left and right, honour some more than others (if at all) and it is good to be able to see the whole picture, compare across commitment and important fro CSOs to demand consistency all across. Bravo! This is Helpful! We are expecting a new phase of UNCAC Reviews, question to you: Could we use your graphics to follow on those reviews? How?