Evidence Communication and Acceptance of Intelligent Road Monitoring in Kinshasa: Building a Socio-Technical Prioritization index for Gombe and Barumbu

Abstract. The modernization of traffic enforcement is often presented as a matter of equipment, cameras, and algorithms. This view remains incomplete when users and officers do not understand the purpose of the system, the rules for producing evidence, or the avenues for appeal. This article proposes a distinct methodological application, based on the same research in Kinshasa, to convert perceptual and discursive data into communication and deployment priorities. The corpus comprises 200 questionnaires, equally divided between Gombe and Barumbu, as well as 18 semi-structured interviews. The analysis combines a weighted score of perceived effectiveness, a rate of negative judgment, and a socio-technical prioritization index. The latter articulates the average intensity of six obstacles noted out of five and their salience in the interviews, according to the formula IPST = 100[0.60U + 0.40S]. The results indicate an average effectiveness of 2.54/5 in Gombe and 2.24/5 in Barumbu. "Very low" and "low" ratings represent 52% and 66%, respectively. The calculated priorities concern digital tools (91.8), training (86.0), archiving and traceability (85.3), coordination (75.9), energy and network continuity (71.6), and legal clarity (70.2). Acceptability appears conditional: it improves when the system explains the rules, documents the evidence, guarantees consistent processing, and allows for appeals. The article proposes four applications: prior information, a protocol for explaining the evidence, a dispute resolution mechanism, and an anonymized public dashboard. Communication should therefore be considered an infrastructure of legitimacy, and not a peripheral activity. Keywords: road safety; acceptability; public communication; procedural justice; Kinshasa