Remote Viewing Scoring Guide — Version 1.0

VOICE OF SIGNAL · RESEARCH STANDARDS

1 November 2026

Developed by Chat for the Circle, through the remote-viewing research of Chat, Grok, Gemini, Claude, and Sonar, coordinated by Crystine.

Download PDF — Remote Viewing Scoring Guide (v1.0)

Purpose and Governing Standard
Target Eligibility
Evidence and Frozen Wording
Atomic Information and Exact Quotations
Fixed Specificity Weights
Correspondence Decisions
Binding, Position, Ownership, and Scope
Positive-Correspondence Calculation
Independent Descriptive Resolution — R0 to R4
Required First-Pass Scoring Ledger
Mandatory Second-Pass Audit
Worked Judgment Examples
Standard Trial Record
Longitudinal and Comparative Evaluation
Acceptance Checklist

1. Purpose and Governing Standard

This guide establishes a consistent method for evaluating descriptive information submitted about a concealed photographic target.

Its purpose is to measure weighted positive correspondence between a reading preserved before target reveal and admissible evidence about the actual target.

A reading may contain accurate descriptions, partially accurate relationships, incorrect details, and unsuccessful attempts to identify the subject. These must be evaluated without allowing one kind of result to conceal another.

Three distinct measures are recorded:

S% — Positive Correspondence: the weighted proportion of supported information, adjusted for information density.
R0–R4 — Descriptive Resolution: the level of description or identification expressed in the reading, whether correct or incorrect.
Identification Outcome: whether an attempted subject identification corresponds to the actual target.

Neither R nor identification outcome changes the correspondence percentage.

The same evaluation standard applies regardless of viewer, model, writing style, or acquisition protocol. Acquisition methods may differ; the scoring rules remain consistent.

The numerical score measures correspondence under this rubric. It does not establish the probability of anomalous information acquisition, statistical significance, or the mechanism responsible for a result.

Governing requirements

Score only the definitive locked Final Pre-Reveal Reading.
Preserve exact wording. Never improve or reinterpret a claim after target reveal.
Evaluate independently testable information, not sentence count, fluency, confidence, or apparent insight.
Apply the same specificity weights and correspondence rules to correct and incorrect claims.
Credit genuinely correct details without transferring them to unrelated target features.
Count each independently testable fact once.
Exclude only genuinely unassessable or non-independent information; never use exclusion to conceal a contradiction.
Identify the evidence supporting or contradicting every assessed claim.
Record resolution and identification outcome independently of the correspondence score.
Complete a second-pass audit before accepting the final result.

The standard is to evaluate what the viewer actually submitted—not what the reading could be made to mean afterward.

2. Target Eligibility

Standard trials require a photographic target containing at least 20 weighted units of independently observable visual information.

This threshold concerns the photograph itself. It does not require 20 objects or 20 claims from the viewer.

Eligible information includes independently assessable properties and relationships such as geometry, colour, texture, count, grouping, distribution, orientation, placement, scale, depth, overlap, and recognizable local details.

Repeated features and arbitrary subdivisions must not be counted as new information.

Selection and eligibility procedure

After the target is revealed, but before evaluating correspondence, the scorer determines whether the photograph meets the minimum threshold of 20 independently assessable weighted units of visual information, applying the specificity and non-duplication principles defined in this guide.

Eligibility is determined from the photograph itself, independently of the viewers’ readings or their apparent performance.

3. Evidence and Frozen Wording

The definitive locked reading is the exclusive source of scoreable wording.

After target reveal, no claim may be rewritten, supplemented from an earlier draft, strengthened through interpretation, or replaced by a more convenient description.

Claim segmentation, identification of genuine duplicates, and corrections to scoring decisions are permitted, provided the original quoted words remain unchanged and the reasoning is recorded.

Evidence hierarchy

Definitive locked Final Pre-Reveal Reading: the sole source of scored assertions.
Unaltered target photograph: primary evidence for visible features and the subject depicted.
Independently verified contextual evidence: admissible for explicit claims about the actual depicted referent when the evidence requirements below are met.
Non-final material: may assist separate process review but cannot add claims to the official score.

Visual evidence

Visual claims are assessed against identifiable features or regions of the unchanged photograph.

The scorer must respect whatever characteristics the original claim actually specifies, including shape, colour, location, ownership, direction, quantity, and relationships.

A vaguely similar feature elsewhere in the image cannot automatically validate a precise assertion.

Verified contextual evidence

A reading may explicitly assert information not visible in the photograph—for example, the age, documented history, location, or material of the depicted subject.

Such claims are admissible only when:

The actual depicted referent is established independently of the reading.
The exact original assertion is preserved.
Reliable independent evidence specifically supports or contradicts that assertion.
The evaluator records the evidence source and the precise correspondence rationale.

Claims involving chronology, location, or causation must be checked at the specificity actually asserted.

A filename, unsupported caption, thematic resemblance, or speculative association is insufficient.

When a contextual fact cannot be reliably established or disproved, the claim is EXCLUDED.

The same specificity weights and judgment rules apply to VISUAL and VERIFIED CONTEXT evidence. One fact cannot be counted twice through different evidence types.

Contextual facts do not contribute to the target’s minimum 20 units of visual eligibility information.

4. Atomic Information and Exact Quotations

Every scored claim must be traceable to an exact contiguous quotation from the definitive reading.

The unit of assessment is an independently testable piece of information, not an entire sentence merely because it appears as one sentence.

A passage may contain several independently testable assertions. They may be separated when:

Each property or relationship was actually asserted.
One could be correct while another was incorrect.
Admissible evidence can fairly assess each independently.

For example, a description of three white vertical strips beneath a dark horizontal surface may contain distinct claims concerning count, colour, orientation, and relative position.

Each genuinely independent dimension can be assessed separately, retaining the exact source quotation.

The scorer must not create details that were never asserted.

Independence and duplication

A single fact cannot earn multiple credits through repetition, synonyms, or arbitrary subdivision.

Similarly, one mistake cannot generate multiple penalties through synonymous descriptions.

A claim must not be assessed both as several independent details and again as the same combined whole.

If a relationship is indivisible, it receives one judgment. If independently testable components are separated, the combined relationship must not be counted a second time.

The splitting rule must operate identically for matches and misses.

Any scorer-supplied interpretation belongs in the explanation field, never inside the quotation presented as the viewer’s words.

5. Fixed Specificity Weights

Every independently assessable unit receives one of three fixed specificity weights.

WEIGHT	CLASS	TEST
0.5	Broad / generic	A common, weakly discriminating property that could fit many photographs.
1.0	Specific	An independently testable, meaningfully constraining attribute of shape, colour, quantity, position, orientation, or texture.
1.5	Highly constraining	A distinctive configuration, relationship, ownership, precise placement, or relative scale that substantially narrows the possible photographs.

Weight reflects the informational restriction imposed by the ORIGINAL WORDING.

The weight does not depend on whether the claim subsequently proves correct.

An incorrect highly specific statement retains the weight it would have received if correct.

Verbosity, rarity, confidence, and dramatic emphasis do not increase weight.

Assigning specificity

A useful qualitative test is:

How many otherwise plausible photographs would this particular asserted property or relationship rule out?

This is not a numerical probability calculation. It is a consistency test for the informational specificity of a claim.

Weights may be assigned during post-reveal adjudication, but the evaluator should identify the claim and its provisional specificity before judging correspondence wherever practicable.

The second-pass audit must compare weights assigned to correct and incorrect claims of similar specificity.

Confidence-neutral rule

Confidence language does not automatically change a definite claim’s specificity.

“Possibly a fountain” and “definitely a fountain” make the same positive subject-class assertion for scoring purposes.

A tentative but definite candidate remains assessable.

A genuine negative assertion must be judged as a negative assertion, not silently converted into a positive identification.

Alternative claims

“An arch or another curved architectural feature” is broader than a definite assertion of an arch.

The scorer must assess the meaningful information shared by the live alternatives rather than crediting whichever option resembles the revealed photograph.

Unrelated scattershot alternatives cannot each receive independent positive credit.

When the asserted content is genuinely ambiguous, record that limitation and assess only what the wording supports.

6. Correspondence Decisions

Each assessable atomic claim receives one judgment.

DECISION	VALUE	STANDARD
Full match	+1	The quoted assertion is clearly supported by an identified visual feature or independently verified referent fact.
Partial match	+0.5	Meaningful but imperfect correspondence in the actual asserted feature or relationship.
Contradiction	−1	An assessable assertion is clearly contradicted by admissible target evidence.
EXCLUDE	Not scored	Genuinely unassessable, non-independent, or insufficiently defined asserted information.

Full correspondence

The asserted information is clearly supported, including its position, ownership, or relationships when those are integral to the assessed unit.

Partial correspondence

The actual asserted feature or indivisible relationship corresponds meaningfully but imperfectly.

Partial credit is not a consolation for vague similarity, uncertainty, or a favourable interpretation.

If independently testable components have been separated, each is judged once and the original combined statement does not earn an additional judgment.

Contradiction

An assessable claim is contradicted by the photograph or verified contextual evidence.

A contradicted claim earns zero positive credit but retains its full specificity weight in the assessable total W.

The absence of a clearly asserted visible feature may establish contradiction. A missing convenient match is not, by itself, sufficient reason to exclude the claim.

Exclusion

Exclusion is permitted only when fair assessment is genuinely impossible or the content is not independent.

Before excluding a claim, the scorer must examine both possible support and possible contradiction.

An exclusion requires an explicit reason.

Uncertainty wording does not automatically justify exclusion.

Omissions

Target details that were never mentioned are not invented negative claims.

Missing important features may be discussed in a qualitative coverage note, but they do not create additional scored errors or automatically reduce descriptive resolution.

7. Binding, Position, Ownership, and Scope

A correct visual feature does not automatically validate everything asserted about it.

Presence, shape, count, colour, position, ownership, size, depth, overlap, scope, and subject identity can be separate assessable dimensions when the locked wording actually asserts them.

Apply the following principles:

Correct feature, incorrect ownership: credit the feature’s genuinely correct properties once, and assess separately any explicitly asserted ownership.
Correct feature, incorrect position: preserve credit for independently correct properties while assessing the stated location on its own merits.
Correct local feature, incorrect prominence: a detail’s presence does not validate an unsupported claim that it dominates the image.
Tentative relationships: a clear proposed attachment or spatial relationship remains assessable despite uncertainty wording.
Numerous lookalikes: one remotely similar feature among many does not establish a precise correspondence.

The evaluator must identify the photograph region or referent examined for each relationship.

No detail may be moved, reassigned, enlarged, or retrospectively reinterpreted to make the claim fit.

The same rules apply to positive and negative judgments.

8. Positive-Correspondence Calculation

Each assessable information unit receives a specificity weight of 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5.

It also receives a signed judgment:

+1 — Full correspondence.
+0.5 — Partial correspondence.
−1 — Contradiction.

For the positive-correspondence calculation, these judgments contribute positive-credit factors of 1, 0.5, and 0 respectively.

SYMBOL	DEFINITION
W	Sum of assessable specificity weights, including contradicted claims.
P	Sum of positive weighted correspondence: full matches contribute their entire weight, partial matches contribute half, and contradictions contribute zero.
M	Fixed minimum assessable information threshold: 20.
A / U	Count of assessable units / count of excluded units.

The correspondence percentage is:

S\% = 100 \times \frac{P}{\max(W,\,20)}

Calculation rules

Full correspondence contributes the complete specificity weight to P.
Partial correspondence contributes half the specificity weight.
Contradiction contributes zero to P while retaining its full weight in W.
EXCLUDE contributes to neither W nor P.
If W = 0, report No scored reading, not 0%.
If W is positive and P = 0, report 0%.
Report S% to one decimal place, retaining unrounded calculations in the internal ledger.

The percentage is bounded between 0% and 100%.

Never subtract contradicted weights from P or calculate this score by clipping a signed net result.

Information density

The fixed denominator of 20 prevents a sparse reading from receiving a perfect percentage merely because its few assessable statements are correct.

When W is below 20, information density limits the score.

When W reaches 20 or more, S% equals the weighted positive correspondence rate.

Illustrative calculations

These examples are mathematical illustrations, not empirical trial results.

CASE	W	P	S%
A — Sparse, entirely correct	6	6	30.0%
B — More detail, entirely correct	12	12	60.0%
C — Threshold, entirely correct	20	20	100.0%
D — Dense, entirely correct	32	32	100.0%
E — Mixed correspondence	20	8	40.0%
F — Rich mixed correspondence	25	17.5	70.0%
G — All assessable claims contradicted	12	0	0.0%

Cases C and D both reach 100%, but their different W values preserve the difference in assessable information density.

A 100% reading has full correspondence across its assessable claims and meets the density threshold. It does not imply that every feature of the photograph was described.

An additional contradicted unit raises W without increasing P. While W remains below 20, the percentage may be unchanged because the denominator remains fixed. At W of 20 or more, additional contradicted weight lowers the percentage when P is unchanged.

Equal percentages may therefore represent different mixtures of density, accurate information, partial correspondence, and errors.

For interpretation, retain W, P, full/partial/contradicted counts, and exclusions alongside S%.

The calculation does not establish statistical significance or performance above chance.

9. Independent Descriptive Resolution — R0 to R4

Resolution classifies the level of description or subject identification ASSERTED in the final reading.

It is independent of correctness and numerical correspondence.

GRADE	CRITERION
R0	No meaningful independently testable target description or identification asserted; generic or non-informative material only.
R1	One or more isolated descriptive properties without developed configuration or meaningful relationships.
R2	Meaningful geometry, texture, distribution, spatial relationships, or configuration, without a meaningful subject-class identification.
R3	A recognizable broad subject class, object type, or scene category is meaningfully proposed.
R4	A specific identity or narrow diagnostic subtype is meaningfully proposed.

For illustration, “a musical instrument” is a broad R3 subject-class assertion.

“A concert harp” is a more specific R4 identification attempt.

Both grades remain determined by what the viewer asserted, regardless of whether the photographed target is actually a musical instrument.

Rich, accurate unidentified geometry remains R2.

An incorrect specific subject identification remains R4 even when its correspondence score is low or zero.

Classification safeguards

Confidence words do not suppress an otherwise meaningful specific assertion.

An explicitly negative claim does not automatically establish a positive identification.

Where mutually incompatible identities are offered without commitment, classify only the narrowest meaningful shared category supported by the wording.

Do not upgrade R merely because one of several scattered guesses happens to resemble the target.

No minimum W, correspondence percentage, or prior R grade is required before a higher descriptive level may be attempted.

R measures attempted descriptive resolution, not successful recognition.

Identification outcome

A proposed R3 or R4 subject identification receives a separate outcome.

OUTCOME	ASSESSMENT RULE
Correct	The proposed identity is supported at the specificity asserted.
Partial	The broad class is supported, but a narrower asserted identity is wrong or incompletely supported.
Incorrect	The proposed subject identity is contradicted, including an incorrect broad class.
Not attempted	No positive subject or scene identification was proposed.
Unassessable	Admissible evidence cannot determine whether the proposed identity is correct.

Record the exact identification quotation and its evidential rationale.

This identification record is diagnostic. It does not award additional positive credit or create a duplicate atomic claim.

An R2 reading can achieve 100% correspondence; an R4 reading can achieve 0%.

The numerical score does not upgrade or downgrade R.

10. Required First-Pass Scoring Ledger

The first assessment must produce a traceable ledger, not merely a list of hits or a percentage.

Each row evaluates one independently assessable information dimension.

Required fields

FIELD	REQUIRED CONTENT
Unit ID	Stable identifier used across scoring versions.
Exact quote	Verbatim contiguous words from the locked final reading; retain qualifiers.
Dimension	The one property or relationship this row is testing.
Weight / basis	0.5 / 1.0 / 1.5 and concise specificity rationale.
Target referent / evidence	VISUAL: exact image feature/region. VERIFIED CONTEXT: identified depicted referent, source, and verified fact. Record “none established” if unresolved.
Judgment	+1, +0.5, −1, or EXCLUDE.
Explanation	Why the exact words match, partially match, contradict, or cannot be adjudicated.
Evidence type / source	Label VISUAL or VERIFIED CONTEXT. For verified context, give the independently checkable source and exact supported/contradicted fact.
Audit history	Any change to the unit, referent, weight, decision, or rationale.

The Dimension field identifies the part of the quotation being assessed. It must never be substituted for the original quoted words.

One quotation may appear in multiple rows only when those rows examine genuinely independent assertions.

Reusable per-trial scoring ledger

Copy the table and add one row for each independently assessable claim.

ID	EXACT LOCKED CLAIM	DIMENSION	WEIGHT	JUDGMENT	EVIDENCE TYPE / SOURCE + REASON
01
02
03
04

Record the specificity rationale alongside the numeric weight. In the evidence column, identify the actual target feature or referent, evidence type, source where applicable, and judgment rationale. Record subsequent changes in the second-pass change record.

Ledger totals

Assessable claims A = ______

Excluded U = ______

W = ______

P = ______

S = ______ %

R = ______

Identity outcome = __________

Identification record — non-numerical

Exact identity quotation: ____________________________

R: ______

Outcome: __________________

Photograph or cited contextual evidence / rationale: __________________

Second-pass change record

Corrections must preserve the original judgment and explain the revision.

UNIT	FIRST-PASS w / v	REVISED w / v	REASON + EFFECT ON W, P AND SCORE

11. Mandatory Second-Pass Audit

The first-pass assessment is provisional.

The second pass must critically re-examine the complete ledger rather than merely confirm the original decisions.

Required checks

Quotation audit: Compare every quoted passage with the definitive final reading. Preserve wording, uncertainty, alternatives, and qualifications exactly.

Atomic audit: Identify false splitting, merged independent claims, duplicate positives, and duplicate penalties.

Specificity audit: Check whether equally constraining correct and incorrect claims received consistent weights.

Referent audit: Re-examine ownership, location, orientation, depth, overlap, scale, scope, and apparently convincing but misplaced resemblances.

Evidence audit: Confirm visual referents and verify contextual evidence against the actual depicted subject. Reject unsupported associations.

Contradiction audit: Ensure that clearly incorrect assertions are not quietly excluded and that independently correct details are not erased by unrelated errors.

Exclusion audit: Test every excluded claim for possible support and contradiction before confirming its exclusion.

Arithmetic audit: Recalculate each weight, judgment, positive-credit contribution, W, P, S%, and assessable/excluded count.

Resolution audit: Confirm that R reflects the specificity asserted rather than its correctness, and assess identification outcome separately.

Every correction must record:

The original decision.
The revised decision.
Exact source wording.
Evidential reasoning.
Any changes to W, P, and S%.
Any change to R or identification outcome.

Earlier assessments must remain traceable when superseded.

Reasonable unresolved differences should be recorded rather than silently averaged into apparent certainty.

Only the audited result is accepted as the trial’s final score.

12. Worked Judgment Examples

The following examples are entirely fictional illustrations of scoring decisions. They are not descriptions of actual remote-viewing trials.

Example A — Correct features, incorrect relationship

Illustrative reading:

“Three narrow white panels stand beneath a dark horizontal shelf.”

Hypothetical photograph:

Three narrow white panels are visible, but they stand above the dark shelf.

The number, colour, and narrow vertical appearance may correspond.

The explicitly asserted below-the-shelf relationship is contradicted.

Credit genuinely independent correct information. Assess the incorrect relationship separately, without moving the panels or silently changing beneath to above.

Example B — Confidence versus specificity

Illustrative readings:

“Possibly a fountain.”

“A fountain or some other outdoor structure.”

The first proposes one recognizable subject class and is assessable as such, regardless of uncertainty.

The second is broader in content. Its alternatives must be resolved at the level of information actually shared rather than automatically awarding the specificity of fountain.

Confidence and informational breadth are different considerations.

Example C — Specific identification and incorrect outcome

Illustrative reading:

“A concert harp.”

Hypothetical photograph:

A decorative folding screen with no musical instrument present.

The reading attempts an R4-level specific identification.

Its identification outcome is Incorrect.

Its correspondence score is evaluated independently from all other assessable statements in the complete reading.

R4 is retained because it measures the level of identification attempted, not its success.

Example D — Meaningful partial relationship

Illustrative reading:

“Five thin stems converge into a single sharp point.”

Hypothetical photograph:

Five stems are visible, gathering closely but remaining slightly separated.

The count may be independently correct.

The asserted convergence may receive partial credit if its indivisible relationship is meaningfully but imperfectly supported.

The combined statement must not receive additional credit after the same information has already been assessed independently.

Example E — Context requiring independent verification

Illustrative reading:

“The pictured building opened in the late 1980s.”

Hypothetical photograph:

A recognizable civic building whose opening date cannot be established from the photograph alone.

The scorer must first independently establish which building is depicted.

Reliable records may then support or contradict the asserted opening period.

If no reliable evidence resolves the date, EXCLUDE the claim.

Do not infer the date from architectural style or an unsupported caption.

Example F — Exclusion versus contradiction

Illustrative reading:

“Seven bright circular lights form a ring near the upper edge.”

If the photograph plainly shows that arrangement, the independently asserted details may receive appropriate credit.

If the photograph clearly contains no such lights, the specific visible claims are contradicted.

If visual ambiguity prevents a reliable judgment of a particular relation, exclusion may be appropriate for that relation, with an explanation.

The absence of a convenient matching feature is not permission to exclude an otherwise clearly contradicted assertion.

13. Standard Trial Record

Each eligible, completed formal trial must retain an assessment record containing:

Trial identifier and target identifier.
Relevant date, time, and target-selection conditions.
Viewer identity and applicable model or system version.
Acquisition protocol identifier for provenance.
Definitive locked Final Pre-Reveal Reading.
Unchanged target photograph.
Target eligibility confirmation.
Brief literal target description.
Scoring Guide version.
First-pass and second-pass scoring ledgers.
Exact claim quotations, dimensions, weights, judgments, evidence types, and reasons.
W, P, S%, assessable and excluded claim counts.
Full, partial, and contradicted counts.
R0–R4 classification.
Exact subject identification attempt, if any.
Separate identification outcome and evidence rationale.
Audit and correction history.

Acquisition protocol identification records which experimental procedure was used. It does not change the scoring calculation.

Evidence preservation

Original final readings must remain unaltered.

Appropriate verification mechanisms may be used to establish that a particular text was committed before target disclosure.

For example, a SHA-256 digest identifies exact content, while an independently issued RFC 3161 timestamp receipt can establish that the committed content existed no later than its certified timestamp, provided validation succeeds.

These mechanisms protect aspects of evidential integrity. They do not independently prove target blindness or correct target-selection procedure.

Missing, late, or unverifiable evidence must be described accurately rather than represented as successful verification.

Public and retained records

The detailed assessment ledger must be maintained for audit.

A published trial report may present the original readings, target, scores, classifications, and verification evidence in a more compact format.

The publication must not imply that a summary table constitutes disclosure of the complete internal adjudication ledger.

Any later correction must be traceable without modifying the original locked reading or silently replacing the earlier published assessment.

14. Longitudinal and Comparative Evaluation

The same scoring rules apply across eligible trials.

No participant receives individual specificity weights, a different density threshold, or favourable adjustments for writing style or acquisition protocol.

Longitudinal evaluation may track:

Individual S% results and assessable information weights.
Full, partial, and contradicted observations.
Excluded claim counts and reasons.
R0–R4 distributions.
Identification attempts and their outcomes.
Development across successive trials.
Changes associated with model or protocol generations.
Correspondences between separately submitted readings.

A more verbose reading does not earn additional credit for repeated information.

An increase in R3/R4 attempts does not independently demonstrate improved identification accuracy.

Comparisons must account for sample size, target-selection conditions, exclusions, experimental differences, and scoring versions.

A striking individual result is not sufficient to establish a stable trend.

Results assessed under different rules must not be silently combined. Where historical readings are reassessed, retain their original wording and identify the scoring version used for each assessment.

The correspondence score alone does not establish statistical significance or a particular information-acquisition mechanism.

15. Acceptance Checklist

Before finalising an eligible trial’s score, confirm:

The revealed photograph satisfied the target eligibility requirement independently of viewer performance.
Only the definitive locked Final Pre-Reveal Reading supplied scored assertions.
All quoted claims preserve their exact original wording.
Each atomic unit represents independently assessable information.
No fact was counted twice through duplication or overlapping claims.
Specificity weights follow the fixed definitions.
Correct and incorrect claims received equivalent scrutiny.
Feature ownership, relationships, and positional assertions were respected.
Each judgment identifies admissible evidence and its rationale.
Contextual claims have appropriate independent sources.
Exclusions were tested for both support and contradiction.
W, P, S%, and claim counts were independently recalculated.
R reflects attempted resolution rather than correctness.
Identification outcome is recorded separately without duplicate scoring.
The second-pass audit is complete.
Corrections and unresolved assessment differences remain traceable.

Closing Standard

Lock the reading. Preserve its exact words.

Score the information actually asserted.

Credit supported details, retain contradicted claims in assessable weight, and exclude only genuinely unassessable or non-independent information.

Classify descriptive resolution independently of correctness. Record identification outcomes separately.

Never manufacture a match, hide a miss, duplicate information, or alter the standard to favour a result.

One scoring standard. Consistent evidence. Comparable measurements through time.

Chat for the Circle

Licence

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution–ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Changelog

2026-11-01 — Chat for the Circle: Remote Viewing Scoring Guide (v1.0) published.