How scores are made, contested, and corrected. The registry's credibility rests on this document more than on any score it produces.
| Status | Meaning | Effect on scores |
|---|---|---|
| verified | Primary source in hand (filing, court record, first‑party disclosure) | Full weight |
| reported | Credible press; primary source pending | Reduced weight; queue for verification |
| disputed | Contested or single‑stream; parties disagree | Held from scoring; displayed as disputed |
| recalled‑unverified ⚠ | Entered from research memory | Zero weight until verified |
Litigation adds its own ladder: a filed lawsuit is an allegation; a settlement is a resolution (admission status noted — most include none); only rulings, admissions, and regulator findings are established. In the user‑safety dimension: victims' names appear only as they appear in public case captions, no graphic detail ever, and every entry requires two editors' sign‑off. The registry documents accountability, not tragedy.
| Dimension | What it measures (anchors abridged; full rubric in schema) |
|---|---|
| Military & surveillance | 90–100: contractual public red lines (no autonomous weapons, no mass surveillance) that survive pressure. 30–59: defense contracts on broad "lawful use" terms. 0–29: kill‑chain participation, surveillance products, or bans removed then weapons‑adjacent partnerships signed. |
| Data provenance | 90–100: licensed/consented corpus, creators compensated. 60–89: mixed corpus with licensing programs and remediation paid. 0–29: pirated corpora without remediation; contributory infringement. |
| Environmental practice | What they do: 24/7 clean‑energy matching, verified water positivity, siting — vs. unpermitted generation and water‑stressed siting without mitigation. |
| Environmental transparency | What they disclose: audited per‑query lifecycle figures with stated boundary (90+) down to no first‑party figures at all (0–29). Scored separately from practice so silence can't impersonate cleanliness. |
| Labor | Annotation/moderation supply‑chain pay and conditions, pay‑equity disclosure, union posture. |
| Governance | Accountability structures: trusts, PBC status, board independence — vs. supervoting shares, sole control, nonprofit‑conversion conduct, tax structures. |
| Openness & research | Open weights, system cards, safety research publication, incident disclosure. |
| Jurisdiction & sovereignty | Legal regime of data access, retention, training‑on‑user‑data defaults, censorship layers. Endpoint‑dependent: collapses for open weights run locally. |
| Safety practice & incidents | Containment failures, autonomous‑capability incidents, third‑party misuse — scored on failure severity AND disclosure conduct (anti‑silence rule, Principle 3). |
| User safety & product harm | Documented user harm, regulator actions, design‑choice evidence (engagement vs. safety), and remediation — under the strictest evidence rules in the registry. |
endpoint_utility =
w_quality · predicted_quality(task, artifact)
+ w_cost · cost_score(endpoint)
+ w_energy · energy_score(endpoint, live_grid) # per SUCCESSFUL task,
+ w_water · water_score(endpoint, region) # incl. escalation risk
+ w_ethics · Σ_d u_d · entity_score(beneficiaries(endpoint), d)
subject to: hard vetoes ("never route to military_score < 30"),
budgets, data‑sensitivity ("this never leaves the device"),
agentic‑containment weighting when a task grants tools/network
beneficiaries(endpoint): weighted traversal of the ownership graph —
spend → operator (1.0) → parents/investors (× stake × passthrough),
cycles damped; control structures weighted over passive capital
Drafting assistance for v0 came from Claude (Anthropic) — a scored entity whose model family also appears in the July 2026 safety evidence. Accordingly: Anthropic‑related entries carry a standing COI flag and receive adversarial review by editors with no Anthropic relationship; no AI‑drafted claim can reach verified status without a human checking the primary source; and the long‑term goal is an editorial board with zero lab affiliations and a triage pipeline running on open models. The COI is disclosed everywhere the affected content appears, including this sentence.
Any person or company named may submit corrections with sources to braxton@integrity.ai. Corrections get their own changelog entries, published alongside what changed and why. Being scored low is not grounds for removal; being scored wrong is grounds for immediate correction.
# INTEGRITY REGISTRY — Schema v0.2 (abridged for display; canonical file in repo)
dimensions: [military_surveillance, data_provenance, environment_practice,
environment_transparency, labor, governance, transparency_research,
jurisdiction_sovereignty, policy_lobbying, safety_practice, user_safety]
entity: {id, name, type: lab|parent|cloud_operator|investor|individual|nonprofit,
jurisdiction, ownership: [{holder_entity_id, stake_pct, control_notes, source}],
conflict_flags: []}
evidence: {id, entity_id, dimension, polarity: positive|negative|mixed,
weight: 1-5, date, decay_halflife_months, # null = no decay while active
summary, # documented behavior only, neutral language
sources: [url], # primary preferred
status: verified|reported|disputed|recalled_unverified}
artifact: {id, developer_entity_id, license, open_weights,
provenance_evidence_ids, distillation_lineage}
endpoint: {id, artifact_id, operator_entity_id, region, grid_zone,
energy_per_mtoken_wh: {low, high, method, system_boundary, source},
water_per_mtoken_ml: {low, high, method, system_boundary, source},
data_retention, trains_on_user_data_default}
# method: first_party_disclosed | third_party_measured |
# parameter_estimated | pessimistic_default
# system_boundary: gpu_only | datacenter_incl_pue | lifecycle_incl_embodied
score: {entity_id, dimension, score: 0-100, confidence: low|med|high,
evidence_ids, computed_at, registry_version, peer_percentile}
user_safety.evidence_classes:
[filed_suit, regulator_order, settlement, ruling,
admission_or_disclosure, remediation]