One number that says: this checks out.
After every fact in your pack has been cross-checked, your profile carries a single score from 0 to 100. It doesn’t measure how impressive you are — it measures how well your story holds up under verification. And it is decided almost entirely by the collection choices you make before you upload anything.
§1The scale
The score is deliberately conservative. Because no evidence is ever perfect and no pack is infinitely deep, even an exceptional, heavily corroborated profile tops out around the high eighties — 88 is a great score, and anything above 95 would take extraordinary evidence. A first pack that lands in the 50s or 60s is normal; a 65+ means your story is genuinely well-evidenced. If you’ve seen “grade inflation” scores elsewhere, recalibrate: here, the sternness is the point — it’s what makes the number worth an employer’s trust.
§2What the score is made of
Five things go in. Each one maps directly to a collection choice you control:
1 · Believability
How well each individual fact holds up: what kind of source stated it, whether a document anchors it, whether anyone confirmed it. Facts backed by anchors and credible voices score high; bare assertions don’t.
2 · Depth
How much evidence stands behind a typical fact of yours — not your best one. A pack where major stories are each told by two or three sources reads deep; a pack of single mentions reads thin, however many facts it has.
3 · Independence
What share of your facts rest on your word alone. Self-told facts are welcome — they carry your voice — but every fact that only you attest drags this down. The fix is never to say less; it’s to get others saying more.
4 · Breadth
How many distinct voices speak for you, how varied they are (managers, mentors, peers, clients, experts), and whether a healthy share of your facts — roughly one in four — is anchored by documents.
5 · Consistency
What contradicts. Conflicting dates, titles that don’t match letters, stories that disagree — each contradiction drags the score. Context you provide softens the drag but never erases it, which is why consistency before upload beats explanations after.
What it is not
It is not a talent score, and it is not favorability. A well-evidenced unflattering fact — a weak semester with the marksheet attached, a failure told honestly by you and your manager — raises it. The score rewards a story that checks out, not a story that flatters.
§3The same person, three packs
The strongest proof that collection choices decide the score: here is one person’s career, gathered three different ways.
- 30 · Weak — the self-only pack. Hours of self-interview, a polished resume, well-written stories… and no one else on record, no documents. Every fact rests on one voice: yours. However true it all is, nothing corroborates it.
- 65 · Good — the solid mixed pack. Five people on record across different relationships, documents anchoring the key claims, most major stories told twice — plus a couple of date mismatches that context explains but doesn’t erase. This is what a careful first pack realistically achieves.
- 88 · Strong — the deep, diverse pack. Every major story corroborated by independent voices, one fact in four document-anchored, an expert on record, dates consistent everywhere. This is the practical ceiling territory — and it is reachable with the checklist on these pages.
§4Ten levers that raise your score
In rough order of impact:
| # | Lever | Moves |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Put at least four voices on record. Four or more people, none of them you, each with the consent slate. This is the single biggest step out of the weak bands. | Breadth, Independence |
| 2 | Get every major story told twice. Brief endorsers on which projects to cover so their accounts land on the same events as your self-interview — in their own words. | Depth |
| 3 | Anchor one fact in four with a document. Sweep the full checklist; when you tell a story on tape, name the document that backs it. | Breadth, Believability |
| 4 | Never let a big claim rest on your word alone. Before submitting, list your ten proudest claims and check each has a second source. Any orphan: recruit its witness or find its paper. | Independence |
| 5 | Make dates precise and identical everywhere. Month-and-year, the same on resume, profiles, letters, and out loud in recordings. Vague or clashing dates manufacture contradictions out of true facts. | Consistency |
| 6 | Vary your voices. A manager, a professor, a peer, and a client together outweigh four managers. Different vantage points corroborate different kinds of facts. | Breadth |
| 7 | Include an expert. One expert examination per career theme adds the highest-weight testimony a voice can give. | Believability |
| 8 | Add links that verify themselves. GitHub history, published apps, scholarly profiles, official results pages — evidence anyone can check independently. | Believability, Breadth |
| 9 | Disclose proactively. The gap year, the exit, the failed project — put them in with context, on your terms. Disclosed context is a closed question; a discovered contradiction is a permanent drag. | Consistency |
| 10 | Answer clarifying questions when asked. If something in your pack needs context after review, provide it — your explanation travels with the fact from then on. It softens the drag; only up-front consistency prevents it. | Consistency |
§5What doesn’t move it
- Repeating yourself. The same claim in your resume, your bio, your self-interview, and three blog posts is still one self-told fact. Duplicates are recognized and counted once — write it once, then spend the effort getting someone else to say it.
- Coached endorsements. Two people reciting matching lines collapse into one source. You paid for two calls and bought one voice.
- Volume of self-authored material. A tenth blog post moves nothing if the first nine are uncorroborated. Trade one afternoon of writing for one 20-minute endorser call.
- Superlatives. “World-class”, “expert”, “exceptional” — grade inflation in your own words doesn’t raise believability; unbacked, it lowers it. The verification only grips specifics.
- Explaining instead of fixing. Context softens a contradiction but never erases it. An hour spent aligning dates before upload is worth more than the best explanation after.
§6Quick answers
Why can’t I score 100?
Because no finite evidence proves anything with certainty, and the score refuses to pretend otherwise. The high eighties is the practical ceiling — that’s calibration, not failure.
Is an unflattering fact bad for my score?
No — the opposite, if it’s well-evidenced. The score measures how well your story checks out, not how flattering it is. Honest, corroborated weakness is strong evidence that everything else you say can be trusted.
My pack is mostly documents. Enough?
Documents anchor facts, but they can’t tell stories, describe how you work, or examine your thinking. Without voices, the profile is a filing cabinet. You need both — that’s why breadth is scored directly.
Can I improve the score later?
The score reflects the evidence behind your published profile, so the pack you gather now is the score you carry. Collect completely the first time — it’s far easier than reopening collection later.