# How kitchens fail

> One rating hides three separate judgements, and they do not fail together.

- Category: Environment
- Cadence: monthly
- Status: Published on a monthly cadence.
- Dataset key: `hygiene-components`
- Source: [Food Standards Agency](https://ratings.food.gov.uk/)
- Licence: Open Government Licence v3.0 — [terms](https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/)
- Canonical page: [https://londongraph.com/g/how-kitchens-fail](https://londongraph.com/g/how-kitchens-fail)
- Machine-readable record: [https://londongraph.com/data/how-kitchens-fail](https://londongraph.com/data/how-kitchens-fail)

## Methodology

Mean score for each of the three components behind a food hygiene rating across every rated London premises: food hygiene, structure and cleanliness, and confidence in management. Lower is better on all three — zero is compliant and 25 is urgent. A kitchen can be spotless and badly run, and the single headline rating cannot say which.

## Visualisations

- [London means](https://londongraph.com/g/how-kitchens-fail): Compare the three published component scores; lower means better compliance.
- [Borough components](https://londongraph.com/g/how-kitchens-fail?view=borough-matrix): Compare food hygiene, structure and confidence-in-management mean scores across boroughs. Caveat: Component scores are inspector judgements on a lower-is-better scale and are not percentages.

## Citation guidance

Attribute the original publisher named above and identify LondonGraph as the visualisation and methodology layer. Do not describe live values as a historical census, and do not present placeholder values as observations.