Great point. Constraints can be included in Evaluation maps or separately as a different layer. If you include it in evaluation your are only “penalized” during impacts but if you add it as a constraints layer it will clip the diagrams to remove anything over it. So if added as a constraints layer is a “hard” constraint and is enforced when included in a evaluation map, it is a soft constraint and just will have negative impacts but will not be clipped. See this: What are constraints?
Re “Hidden agenda”: I can talk about this a lot. Geodesignhub maps are a “ordinal scale” that means that they are “opinion based” not “data based” so any hidden agenda is really the agenda of the map maker as it should be. There is plenty of data and maps to show that you should not build any settlements on a flood prone area, yet millions of people live in a flood prone area (e.g. this link) so “data-driven” maps are totally ignored e.g. read this very important / insightful blog on data driven maps. And lets ask the question honestly, do you really think anything will change looking at these maps without fundamental changes in us. Which brings me back to a basic point: data does not govern decision making (it helps), the decision model (values) and economics does. What Geodesignhub is trying to do is to show the inter-connections and move away from a zero-sum values / economics game by introducing negotiations and supporting execution of these negotiated outcomes. Anyway, we can talk about this in great detail.