Reforms and Score Reduction
CLCI scores are not fixed. Where a group implements substantive, documented, sustained reform of the practices that produced its score, the score can be revised downward. This page documents what reform we recognise, what evidence we expect, and what would not qualify.
The principle
CLCI rates documented conduct against the BITE model. If documented conduct changes — and the change is sustained, visible, and verifiable — the rating should change. We do not treat a high-control history as a permanent verdict. Holding a group's past score against it after substantive reform would be both unfair and methodologically incoherent.
What we count as reform
- Formal policy revision — written policies addressing the specific practices that drove the score (e.g. ending mandatory disconnection, removing shunning penalties, opening leadership selection).
- Leadership change — where the prior leadership is associated with the documented harms, succession to leaders who have publicly disavowed and ended those practices.
- Restitution — financial restitution to harmed members, formal apology, or settlement programmes.
- External oversight — voluntary submission to external safeguarding audits, regulatory engagement, or independent ombudsman processes.
- Evidence of changed lived experience — ex-member and current-member accounts converging on the view that the prior practices have meaningfully stopped, not merely been renamed.
What does not, on its own, qualify
- Public-relations rebranding without underlying policy change.
- New leadership stating intentions without observable practice change.
- Internal documents claiming reform that ex-members and outside observers cannot verify.
- Litigation against critics framed as 'protecting the reformed organisation'.
- Reorganisation, renaming, or splintering without substantive change in the successor body.
Sustained reform
We look for sustained reform — typically multiple years of consistent practice — before making material score reductions. Single events (one policy revision, one new leader) are recorded in the changelog but do not automatically reduce the score. The asymmetry is deliberate: scores changed too readily would become unreliable, and the burden of evidence for change should mirror the burden of evidence used to establish the score in the first place.
How to submit reform evidence
Use the scoring appeals process. We ask for: a clear statement of what has changed, the documented evidence for the change (sources, dates, formal policies), and any external verification available. We do not require commercial consideration, advertising agreements, or promotional arrangements; we will not give them weight if offered.
What appears on the profile when a score is reduced
The group's changeLog[] records the date, the previous score, the new score, and the documented basis for the revision. The profile retains a history of the prior practices — reform is recorded, not erased — but the headline score reflects the current state. See /updates/scores for recent score revisions across the catalogue.