📊 Our Scoring Methodology
How we calculate credibility scores for UFO/UAP news and why you can trust our analysis.
The 100-Point System
Every article receives a credibility score from 0-100 based on five weighted factors. This system is designed to be objective, consistent, and transparent. Higher scores indicate stronger evidence and more reliable sources.
The Five Scoring Factors
Source Reliability
The historical accuracy and journalistic standards of the publishing source. Government sources, major news networks, and peer-reviewed publications score highest. Unknown or historically inaccurate sources score lower.
Moderate (60-84): Established specialty publications, regional news
Low (<60): Unknown sources, sites with history of inaccuracy
Evidence Quality
The type and strength of supporting evidence. Physical evidence, official documents, and multi-sensor data score highest. Unsupported claims or anonymous sources score lowest.
Moderate: Photographs, named witness testimony
Weak: Anonymous sources, unsupported claims
Corroboration
Whether multiple independent sources confirm the information. Stories verified by multiple outlets or featuring multiple witnesses score higher than single-source reports.
Moderate: Some corroboration, multiple witnesses
Weak: Single source, exclusive/unverified claims
Official Acknowledgment
Whether government, military, or scientific institutions have acknowledged the phenomenon or information. Official statements and declassified documents significantly boost scores.
Moderate: Acknowledged by agencies but not explained
Weak: No official acknowledgment
Expert Analysis
Whether qualified experts (scientists, former officials, analysts) have weighed in on the claims. Expert endorsement increases credibility; expert debunking decreases it.
Moderate: Some expert commentary, mixed opinions
Weak: No expert analysis or experts dispute claims
Our Analysis Process
1. Aggregation
We continuously monitor news APIs and RSS feeds from trusted sources. When new UFO/UAP content is detected, it enters our analysis queue.
2. Source Evaluation
Each source is assigned a base reliability score from our database. Unknown sources receive a default neutral score of 50.
3. Multi-Agent AI Analysis
Our analysis pipeline has three stages:
Stage 1 — RAG Retrieval: The article is matched against our knowledge graph of linked cases, evidence, and sources to build context.
Stage 2 — Five-Agent Debate: Five specialized AI analysts independently evaluate the story: an Evidence Analyst classifies and scores evidence types; a Source Investigator checks source credibility and finds corroborating coverage; a Scientific Skeptic demands empirical proof and identifies alternative explanations; a Historical Archivist compares against known cases and identifies patterns; and a Government Disclosure Analyst tracks official statements and policy context.
Stage 3 — Synthesis: A master Orchestrator reviews all agent outputs, identifies points of agreement and disagreement, runs cross-examinations on disputed areas, and produces a final consensus report with credibility verdict and confidence intervals.
4. Score Calculation
Each of the five factors is scored 0-100, then weighted according to the percentages above to produce a final credibility score.
5. Report Generation
A detailed report is generated explaining the score breakdown, key findings, and any concerns identified during analysis.
Limitations & Disclaimers
No system is perfect. Our scoring methodology is designed to be objective, but it has inherent limitations:
- AI analysis can make errors — we recommend reading full reports
- Source scores are estimates — individual articles may vary in quality
- New evidence can change scores — we update analyses as facts emerge
- A high score doesn't mean "true" — it means strong supporting evidence
- A low score doesn't mean "false" — it means limited verifiable evidence
We encourage readers to review our full analyses, check original sources, and form their own conclusions.