Scores

How Sources Rate

Source scores are derived from the 18-signal framework. Each source receives an overall epistemological score plus individual signal breakdowns. Scores are updated as new output is evaluated.

Scale

Score Interpretation

Scores are not pass/fail judgments. They are empirical measurements of epistemological quality across 18 signals.

0.00 - 0.49
Fail
Critical methodology issues
0.50 - 0.74
Conditional
Significant gaps identified
0.75 - 0.89
Pass
Meets epistemological standards
0.90 - 1.00
Exemplary
Outstanding methodology and transparency
Categories

Sources We Evaluate

Research Papers

Academic and Pre-Print Research

Peer-reviewed journals, pre-print servers, working papers, and conference proceedings. Evaluated on full 18-signal framework with emphasis on methodology signals.

News Sources

Journalism and Media

News organizations, investigative journalism, opinion pieces, and editorial content. Source signals weighted higher. Claim signals adapted for journalistic context.

Think Tanks

Policy Research Organizations

Policy analysis, position papers, and research reports from think tanks. Funding transparency signal heavily weighted. Conflict of interest closely scrutinized.

Corporate Reports

Business and Industry Analysis

ESG reports, sustainability claims, financial analysis, and market research. Conflict of interest and funding transparency are critical signals in this category.

Internal

Self-Audit Output

DaedArch Corporation, Trellison Institute, LedgerWell Corporation, and all venture output. Evaluated with identical methodology. No exceptions.

Government

Public Sector Data and Reports

Government statistics, regulatory filings, policy analyses, and public data releases. Data availability and methodology transparency are key signals.

Process

How Scoring Works

Scoring is transparent. Every number has a documented rationale. Every weight has a justification. The scoring methodology itself is subject to self-audit.

1

Source Identification

The source is categorized and its metadata collected: publication history, institutional affiliation, funding disclosures, and prior evaluation results.

2

Signal Evaluation

Each of the 18 signals is independently scored on a 0 to 1 scale. Every score includes a written rationale documenting why that score was assigned.

3

Category Weighting

Signal scores are weighted by category. Default is equal weighting (0.33 each for Source, Methodology, Claim). Weights adjust based on source category — e.g., news sources weight Source signals higher.

4

Aggregation

Weighted signals are aggregated to produce category scores (Source Credibility, Methodology Quality, Claim Validity) and an overall epistemological score.

5

Publication

Results are published with full signal breakdowns, scoring rationales, and the ability to contest any individual signal score.

Maintenance

Score Updates

Scores are living evaluations. They update as new output is evaluated and as sources publish corrections or new work.

New evaluation Score recalculated with new output included
Correction published Correction History signal (S5) updated positively
Retraction All affected signals recalculated
Methodology change Framework versioned. Prior scores annotated, not retroactively changed.
Contestation Individual signal scores can be contested with evidence. Re-evaluation documented.

Full public source scoring dashboard publishing Q2 2026. The framework and methodology are available now.