Score Cards
:::caution These score statements, never people A score card here measures what was said about a specific claim, on a specific date, in a specific place. It is not a measure of anyone's character, honesty, motives, or loyalties. Nothing in this section suggests that any commentator, outlet, official, or attorney is paid, controlled, compromised, or acting in bad faith. Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted. :::
A score card hands the reader the instrument instead of the verdict. Everywhere else on this site the argument is made for you. Here you are given a list, a scoring key, and the underlying documents, and your job is to decide for yourself whether there is a problem in that area.
That is a deliberate choice about how this investigation works. A reader who has scored a broadcast themselves and found it repeating eight of ten unchecked claims does not need to be told the coverage was thin — they measured it. Nothing this site could write would be as durable as that.
The cards
- Fed Narrative Score Card — score any commentator, outlet, official, or episode against the ten points of the federal account. Ten questions, a 0–3 key, and a worked example scoring this site against itself.
- Defense Attorney Score Card — score the defense in case 251403576 against twelve motions an ideal capital attorney would have filed, with the caveat that departing from that ideal is often good lawyering.
How to use a card without misusing it
Score a source, not a person. A card entry needs a name, a date, and a link — an episode, an article, a broadcast, a filing. People move as evidence arrives, and several people in this case have moved publicly and to their credit. A number attached to a person with no date is just an insult with arithmetic on it.
Record the blanks. On the Fed Narrative card, "did not address it" is not zero — it is unscored, and it must be counted separately. Twenty out of thirty means something different when eight of the ten items went unmentioned. Silence is not scrutiny and it is not endorsement either.
Remember what is being measured. These cards score method, not correctness. Someone can cite every filing and still land on the wrong conclusion; someone can repeat the official account and be right. Method is what a reader can actually assess from outside, and it is the only thing these cards claim to measure.
Expect low scores that mean nothing sinister. A newsroom working a breaking story from wire copy on deadline will score near zero on the Fed Narrative card. That is what deadline journalism produces under those conditions. The card is describing a process, not exposing a conspiracy — and treating a low score as evidence of bad faith is the single fastest way to discredit the exercise.
Where the cards get their questions
Both cards are downstream of documents, not of opinions. The Fed Narrative card's ten questions come from the ten claim pages in the Fed Narrative section, and each question names the specific record that would settle it — a Bates-stamped video, a booking sheet, a Senate transcript, a GRAMA hearing recording, a restaurant's card terminal. The Defense Attorney card's twelve motions come from the drafted filings in the AI Attorney workspace.
That is also the limit of the exercise. Most of the documents these cards point at are not public, which is why nearly every card entry ends at "cannot be verified from outside." Fixing that is the argument of the four proposed federal disclosure laws — and a scored card is one of the more useful things a citizen can actually put in front of a representative when asking for them.
More cards will be added as new areas of the case become measurable.
Interesting In This Area
- The Fed Narrative card scores this website against itself, and it loses two items.
- The defense card argues a low score there may be excellent lawyering.
- Every card question names the exact document that would settle it.
- Almost none of those documents are public — which is the finding.