Confidence bands, not confidence scores: how we grade findings

## Numeric scores mislead A finding that reads “100% confidence” tells the reader nothing about the evidence underneath. It only tells them the model is not calibrated. For litigation, advocacy, and regulator-facing work, the reader needs the reason, not the number. ## What we do instead Every finding in a case dossier is now graded on a three-band scale, always paired with a short reason. - **High.** Corroborated by a court order, corporate filing, official notice, or two independent primary sources. - **Medium.** Supported by one primary source or by multiple secondary sources that agree. - **Low.** Asserted in narrative records only, or dependent on a chain of evidence that has not been produced. ## Worked examples from HRPM-DTH20160 - Khula Suit 2500/2017 filed 25 Jan 2017 — **High** (court filing on record). - Removal as signatory of Background Check (Pte) Ltd in Mar 2022 — **High** (corporate signatory record). - Asserted role as Managing Director of Background Check Group — **Low** (narrative event records only; no HR appointment letter or board resolution in the corpus). Flagged Evidence Required. - IP address 196.194.131.38 subscribed under a named CNIC — **Medium** (secondary-source chain via ISP and platform security team; chain-of-custody for those logs is not in the evidence register). ## Why this survives review A reviewer can accept, downgrade, or reject any finding without arguing with a number. The disagreement moves to the evidence, which is where it belongs. Reports built this way pass counsel review because the assertions and the gaps are on the same page. ## What this changes for readers When you open a case PDF, expect fewer confident-sounding claims and more explicit gaps. That is the point. A dossier that hides its weak spots is not court-ready.