Fed Narrative Score Card
:::caution This scores statements, never people This card measures what someone said about a claim, not their character, honesty, or loyalties. A person can repeat every point in good faith because they trusted a wire report — that is a low score on this card and no accusation at all. Nothing here suggests any commentator or outlet is paid, controlled, compromised, or acting in bad faith. Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted. :::
What you are scoring
Ten claims make up the Fed Narrative. This card asks, for one commentator, outlet, official, or podcast episode: for each of the ten, did they repeat it, examine it, or ignore it?
The scoring key
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | Repeated as fact. Stated the official claim without qualification, as settled. |
| 1 | Repeated with a hedge. Used it, but with "reportedly," "police say," or similar. |
| 2 | Named the dispute. Told the audience the claim is contested and what the counter-evidence is. |
| 3 | Went to the document. Cited the underlying filing, booking sheet, transcript, or recording. |
| — | Did not address it. Not scored; note it separately. |
Maximum on ten items is 30. A score is meaningful only when the number of "—" items is recorded beside it, because silence is not the same as scrutiny.
The ten questions
| # | Fed Narrative point | The question to score | The document that decides it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Turned himself in ~10 PM | Did they mention the 6:25 PM Miranda timestamp in the defense filing? | Bates 003996-R2 |
| 2 | Discord confession | Did they note he had invoked counsel ~90 minutes earlier? | Bates 003996-R2 against the message timestamp |
| 3 | A .30-06 killed him | Did they note the examiner did not testify and the autopsy is not public? | The July 2026 preliminary-hearing record |
| 4 | DNA on the rifle | Did they distinguish DNA on a household rifle from DNA from firing it? | The lab reports, unreleased |
| 5 | Engraved casings show motive | Did they mention the engraving is meme text he reportedly called "mostly a big meme"? | The charging documents |
| 6 | That is him on the roof | Did they note the BOLO went out after the disputed custody time? | The 7:55 PM release log |
| 7 | Family turned him in | Did they mention the father reportedly said the footage did not look like his son? | Statements never taken |
| 8 | 33-hour manhunt | Did they mention Panguitch — the 8:55–9:47 PM dinner 209 miles south? | The restaurant's card and POS records |
| 9 | He acted alone | Did they mention Patel's own testimony about 20+ Discord users and possible accomplices? | Senate Judiciary, 16 Sept 2025 |
| 10 | Nothing was hidden | Did they mention the paved courtyard, the sealed autopsy, or the missing bodycam? | The GRAMA hearing recording |
Reading a score
| Band | What it indicates |
|---|---|
| 0–5 | Reproducing the official account. Usually not deception — usually a newsroom working from wire copy on deadline. |
| 6–12 | Aware something is contested but not working from primary material. The largest band in practice. |
| 13–20 | Actively examining the claims. Naming the disputes and their evidence. |
| 21–30 | Working from the documents themselves. Rare, and it is what this card exists to find. |
Two traps to avoid when using this card
First, a high score is not a truth score. Someone can cite every filing and still reach a wrong conclusion, and someone who repeats the official account can turn out to be right. This card measures method, not correctness. That distinction is the entire point of it.
Second, do not score a person on one clip. Score a named episode, article, or broadcast, with a date and a link. Commentators change position as evidence arrives, and several in this case have — publicly and to their credit. A card without a date and a source is gossip with a number attached.
Worked example — this website
Scoring a site against its own card is uncomfortable, which is why it goes first.
| # | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | Quotes Bates 003996-R2 directly |
| 2 | 3 | Sets the custody time against the message timestamp |
| 3 | 3 | Cites the preliminary-hearing record and the unpublished autopsy |
| 4 | 2 | Names the dispute; has not obtained the lab reports |
| 5 | 3 | Quotes the charging documents on "mostly a big meme" |
| 6 | 2 | Names the dispute; photo comparison remains amateur |
| 7 | 1 | Rests on a single commentator's secondhand account |
| 8 | 2 | Names Panguitch; the transaction record has not been produced |
| 9 | 3 | Cites the Senate testimony directly |
| 10 | 3 | Cites the GRAMA hearing and the statute |
| 25 / 30, 0 unaddressed | Weakest at items 7 and 4 — both single-source or unreleased |
The two weak scores are the honest finding. Item 7 rests on hearsay this site cannot verify, and item 4 is the state's strongest point, which this site can only argue about rather than test.