Methodology · version 1.0
A score is an explanation, not a verdict.
HypoRank assesses documented contradictions between a public claim and a later action. It does not infer intent, decide legality, or measure a person’s overall value.
Incident score
Claim ↔ action evidence + pattern + importance + quality − contextEvery incident score is clamped to a 0–100 range and versioned when evidence or context changes.Component anchors
Six visible inputs
| Component | Range | Editorial question |
|---|---|---|
| Direct contradiction | 0–30 | How specifically the documented action conflicts with the documented claim. |
| Words/actions gap | 0–25 | The scale and clarity of the difference between statement and action. |
| Repeated pattern | 0–20 | Multiple independent, non-duplicative documented incidents. |
| Public importance | 0–15 | The decision-maker’s scope of control and public impact. |
| Evidence quality | 0–10 | Source strength, independence, specificity, and retrievability. |
| Context deduction | 0–20 | A transparent reduction for material changed circumstances or a supported explanation. |
Confidence
Enough coverage to qualify the summary
- Provisional
- One or two published records.
- B
- At least three published records.
- A
- At least five records, 60% Tier A evidence, and no active dispute.
Publication requires at least two independent sources, including one Tier A source, plus a documented claim and later action. Readers can challenge incomplete records through the corrections process.