Rate each criterion from 0 to 4 using the strongest level consistently supported by the evidence relevant to that criterion.
| Rating | Evidence level | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not established or material contradiction | No usable evidence, or unresolved evidence inconsistent with a critical claim; record which |
| 1 | Asserted | Sales statement, public description, unsigned projection or uncorroborated response |
| 2 | Documented | Relevant records or draft terms supplied, but important scope, authenticity or operational questions remain |
| 3 | Corroborated for scope | Relevant claim checked against independent/permissioned evidence or reviewed executable commitments, with limitations recorded |
| 4 | Demonstrated and accepted | In addition to level 3, suitable operational evidence, a reproducible test or directly checked comparable outcome supports reliance for this mandate |
The rule is contextual: a negotiated contract can evidence an enforceable commitment, but cannot establish historical cash collection. A redacted remittance can support a payment claim, but cannot prove that the buyer currently wants your content. Avoid turning “verified” into one blanket label.
For each rating save: claim, intended use, evidence identifier, date, reviewer, confidence limits and the next question. Distinguish unknown, adverse finding and out of scope in words even where they receive the same numeric treatment.