Scoring Appeals

What evidence can change a CLCI score, what evidence cannot, how branches and time periods are handled, how reforms are credited, and what makes a substantive appeal as opposed to a disagreement.

Anyone may ask us to reconsider a score: a named organisation, a current member, a former member, a researcher, a journalist, a family member, a member of the public who has read more on the group than we have. The Corrections page is the intake route. This page explains what a substantive scoring appeal looks like and how we process it.

The distinction between factual correction and scoring appeal

A factual correction targets a specific assertion (a founding date, a name spelling, a court-case outcome, a regional presence). Factual corrections move through the Corrections workflow and are typically processed within two weeks where the evidence supports the change. They rarely move the score itself unless the corrected fact undermines a BITE-axis claim.

A scoring appeal asks us to reweight one or more BITE axes, change the Modifier, or move the confidence rating. Appeals require a substantive comparative case, not a single source, because each axis is calibrated against the comparator spread of other groups in the dataset. We process appeals through additional editorial review and they typically take longer.

What evidence can change a score

New primary sources that contradict an existing BITE-axis claim. A court ruling overturning an earlier finding; a government inquiry concluding that a pattern we documented does not actually obtain; a peer-reviewed study with a substantial sample size on member experience that contradicts our characterisation of an axis.
Substantial reform with public-record documentation. A group that has materially changed its practices — replaced leadership, dissolved abusive disciplinary structures, opened its finances to independent audit, ended shunning policies — is entitled to score credit where the reform is documented in primary or secondary sources. See the Reforms section below.
Substantive new investigative journalism from outlets with documented editorial standards. A single long-form investigation in a major outlet can move confidence; multiple corroborating investigations can move both confidence and score.
New peer-reviewed academic work. Where existing scoring relied on dated academic sources and newer work supersedes them, the newer work governs.
Successful defamation defence by the organisation on a specific claim. Where a court has explicitly ruled that a claim we relied on is defamatory or unsupported, that ruling itself is a primary source we act on.
Misapplication of methodology. If a profile was scored in a way that the published methodology does not authorise — e.g. a Modifier applied without a written explanation, an axis raised on anonymous evidence alone — that is an internal editorial error and we will correct it on report.

What evidence cannot change a score

Organisational disagreement alone. A statement from the organisation that “we do not consider ourselves high-control” is published via the Right of Reply process but does not by itself move the score. The score reflects what the public record documents about operational practice, not how the organisation describes itself.
Anonymous testimony. Per the Source Hierarchy, anonymous accounts can confirm patterns documented elsewhere but cannot alone change a score.
Legal threats. Receiving a cease-and-desist or a defamation pre-action letter does not move the score. We respond to legal correspondence through legal channels. Where the organisation has a substantive case on a specific factual claim we will address that specific claim on its evidentiary merits. Where the correspondence is generic pressure to remove unfavourable material, we will not act on it.
Member testimonials of positive experience. Many members of high-control groups have positive personal experiences within the group — this is consistent with how high-control dynamics operate and does not contradict the BITE-axis documentation. We do not weight positive testimonials against documented control patterns.
Recency of the group's founding. A new group is not credited with the benefit of the doubt simply for being new; an older group is not penalised simply for being older.
Theological agreement or disagreement with the group's doctrine. We do not score doctrines as such. We score the operational mechanics around the doctrine.

How branches and time periods are handled

Many of the most common scoring disputes turn on which entity is being scored. A globally diverse movement may have moderate-control practice in most branches and high-control practice in one specific branch. A reforming organisation may have a markedly different operational pattern today than in the 1970s. CLCI Hub addresses this with deliberate entity-level granularity.

Mainstream traditions are separate entries from high-control sub-branches. The Catholic Church as a whole is not graded as a single entity; specific religious orders under Vatican apostolic visitation receive their own entries with their own scores. Mainstream Sunni Islam is not graded; specific Salafi sub-currents documented to enforce takfir and outside- information prohibitions are.
Leader-specific eras have their own entries where appropriate. The FLDS under Warren Jeffs is a different operational entity from the pre-Jeffs FLDS and from successor splinter groups. Where the public-record trail materially differentiates a leader-specific period, we split the entry and explain the separation in the profile.
Splinter groups are their own entities. A group that breaks from a parent organisation under a new leader, with a new doctrinal emphasis, or with materially different operational practice, receives its own profile. The parent and splinter are cross-linked.
Historical-phase entries exist for defunct configurations. Where a group has clearly ended a phase of operation — Synanon dissolved in 1991, the original Branch Davidians ended in 1993, the 19th-century Oneida Community Perfectionists ended in 1881 — the profile reflects the historical operational pattern and notes the dissolution.

If you believe a single profile is conflating two entities that should be scored separately, that is a substantive structural appeal and we welcome it. Useful supporting material includes evidence of distinct leadership, distinct doctrinal emphasis, distinct geographic reach, and distinct operational practice across the entities you want separated.

How reforms are credited

Reform credit is the most editorially demanding scoring change. The operational risk is twofold: granting reform credit on the basis of leadership statements that have not yet been operationalised, and refusing reform credit for genuine structural change because the historical record is still louder than the present.

Our standard for reform credit:

Documented structural change. Leadership replaced; governance structure formally altered; disciplinary practice changed in documented written policy; financial transparency mechanisms instituted with public-record audit trail.
Sustained over time. We will not adjust a score on the basis of a single year of changed practice. Substantial reform credit typically follows three to five years of sustained changed practice, with independent secondary documentation. Partial credit (a one- to two-point axis reduction or a Modifier shift from positive toward zero) can apply earlier where the structural change is clear and documented.
Independently verifiable. Reform credit is not granted on the organisation's own statements alone. We look for independent journalistic confirmation, peer-reviewed analysis, regulator findings, or independent audit reports.
Distinguished from rebranding. A name change, a website refresh, or new public-relations posture without operational change does not earn reform credit.

Where reform credit is applied, the historical record is preserved in the timeline and the change is logged in the public changelog. The new score reflects current practice; the historical pattern remains documented.

How to submit a substantive appeal

Use the Corrections intake. A substantive scoring appeal helps us most when it includes:

The profile slug or URL.
The specific BITE axis or Modifier you believe is mis-scored, and the direction (up or down) you believe the rating should move.
Specific evidence supporting your view — court records, government reports, peer-reviewed work, established journalism, named on-the-record ex-member testimony.
A comparison against at least two comparator profiles in the dataset showing why the axis or Modifier is out of line with comparable groups.
Acknowledgement of any contrary evidence you are aware of and your view on why the supporting evidence outweighs it.
Your role and relationship to the matter (optional, but helpful for context).

Appeals from named organisations are processed through the same workflow and held to the same evidentiary standard as appeals from any other party. We do not give organisations editorial veto over their own scores, and we do not give critics editorial veto either. Both are welcome to make their substantive case.

What an appeal will not yield

Removal of the profile entirely.
Suppression of court findings, government reports, or peer-reviewed academic conclusions.
Score changes on the basis of disagreement alone.
Score changes on the basis of legal pressure absent a substantive evidentiary case.
A guarantee of any specific timeline for review of complex appeals.
A guarantee that the requested change will be made; we may move the score in either direction or not at all depending on what the evidence supports.