Some indicators can be checked from the outside: whether an entity is registered, whether a regulator has flagged it, whether its company actually exists. We do those ourselves and need no help with them.
Others are visible only from the inside: exactly what you were promised on the call, what the compensation plan says, what happened the day you asked for your money back. None of that is in any public registry. If nobody documents it, that indicator stays unevaluated forever — coverage drops, and the index stops being published at all. That is where a contribution changes the outcome.
Registrations and licences, regulator warnings and corporate structure (D1, D2, D3, D4): we check those in the official sources, which is where they carry weight.
The flow of funds (B1): it is the defining indicator of a Ponzi scheme and requires accounting or judicial analysis. Nobody should try to establish it on their own.
The operators’ history (H2): it has its own protocol and a strict identification threshold, precisely because confusing two people with the same name is the gravest harm this project could cause.
One rule, and the rest follow from it: only verifiable material that serves as evidence for a specific indicator of the rubric gets in. This is not bureaucratic rigidity — it is the only thing that makes the result reproducible by anyone and defensible against whoever disputes it.
This sends nothing. It runs entirely in your browser, checks that the contribution meets the minimum, and composes the text for you to copy. If something is missing, it tells you here instead of you finding out weeks later.
A single channel, and deliberately private: a public board would fill up with unverified accusations carrying the name of whoever wrote them. Until a case is published, everything is private — your contribution included.
[email protected]- Complaints with no material. “They took my money, publish this.” We are genuinely sorry, and we cannot publish it. This site is not a complaints board, and turning it into one would destroy it.
- Contributions that score a person. The index always belongs to a project or an entity, never to a human being.
- Conclusions without indicators. “It is obviously a scheme” points at nothing checkable and moves the index by nothing.
- Undeclared conflict of interest, especially from direct competitors. Declaring it almost never disqualifies; hiding it does.
- Unnecessary personal data: home addresses, phone numbers, identity documents, information about relatives.
- Material obtained by accessing other people’s systems or by impersonation. It is unusable, and accepting it would put everything else at risk.
Your contribution enters triage, and if it is discarded the reason is logged — so that the project can answer if it is ever accused of leaving something out. If it passes, we capture the sources ourselves, the rubric is applied indicator by indicator, a verifier tries to refute every conclusion, and a person checks the citations before anything is published.
It is slow, on purpose. A case can take weeks. That slowness is what prevents publishing an error, and an error published by this project would do more damage than silence.
submission → triage (reason logged) → our own capture → evaluation
→ adversarial verification → human review → publicationThe full rules are in docs/05-governance/contributing.md, docs/02-methodology/evidence-standard.md and docs/02-methodology/editorial-policy.md in the repository. This page is their summary, not their replacement.