The OPERA Framework breaches of the obligation to fulfill economic and social rights can prompt decision-makers to be more responsive to – or at least less dismissive of – human rights arguments, sometimes seen as irrelevant to matters of economic and social policy. At the same time, supporting rights-holders to expose and articulate the injustices they face using robust methods anchored in the human rights framework can help give their demands for justice a tangibly renewed force. Lessons learned and questions looking ahead For CESR, OPERA has been a valuable framework to measure compliance with the full range of principles that underpin the obligation to fulfill ESC rights; in a variety of advocacy settings, and drawing on a range of quantitative and qualitative tools. Violations have long been difficult to prove in the context of the obligation to fulfill. By ensuring that a state’s social and economic policies are methodically assessed against each of the core dimensions of outcomes, policy efforts and resources the framework systematically links obligations of result with obligations of conduct. By uncovering the shortcomings in policies that contribute to, if not cause, avoidable ESC rights deprivations, CESR has been able to make concrete, specific recommendations to policy-makers on how these shortcomings could be addressed. Nevertheless, a number of insights and questions can be drawn from CESR’s experience in using OPERA to frame its analysis of socio-economic policies to inspire further reflection. To begin with, this experience has thrown weight behind the idea that a balance of both quantitative and qualitative evidence is needed to support an argument about compliance with the obligation to fulfill ESC rights. Quantitative approaches can yield statistical data, which are inherently well suited to mapping trends and patterns in a particular situation. They can address the questions ‘how much’, ‘how many’, ‘where,’ or ‘when’, that need to be answered to substantiate an argument about compliance. However, the question ‘why’ needs to be answered through more qualitative, contextual analysis that can expose issues such as lack of will or political restrictions. Data-based analysis presents its own set of challenges; it is not uncommon for required data to be unavailable, unreliable or out of date. In response, initiatives have begun to focus on identifying new data, on exploring new ways to collect traditional data, and on facilitating the sharing of existing data and knowledge across sectors and institutions.80 Another strategy has been to bring access to information claims before courts to compel the state to make available data public, or produce data when it isn’t. An increasingly central question emerging for human rights advocates relates to how to effectively harness the real-time, actionable information being generated through these innovative initiatives to practically improve monitoring efforts. 30 As discussed earlier, however, the conclusions about human rights compliance that can be drawn from statistical data alone should not be overstated. Rarely will human rights advocates and activists be able to prove causality between a state’s efforts and the results of those efforts, especially given the time-lag between the implementation of a particular policy  decision and detectable effects on the ground. Even so, by contextualizing numbers with human knowledge—especially the lived knowledge of rights-holders themselves—it is possible to spot correlations and identify ‘red flags’ where improvements are needed, opening space for debate and dialogue about alternative approaches.