v0 previewGrades are draft or provisional: produced under Methodology v0.2.1 from public evidence, pending re-verification and issuer right-of-reply. Nothing here is investment advice, and these are not credit ratings.

Arunights · Principles

Principles

Four rules, held without exception. They are what makes an independent grade worth reading instead of an issuer's marketing page with extra steps.

01

No issuer fees

No issuer, curator, or protocol ever pays for a grade, for a better grade, or for coverage at all. Monitoring and API access can be commercial products; the grade itself is never for sale, in any direction.

02

Open inputs

Every pillar score links the evidence behind it — attestations, on-chain data, disclosures, dated analyst reporting. The methodology, the scoring engine, and the universe of graded assets are public. Nothing about how a number was produced is hidden.

03

Published falsifiers

Every graded asset states, in public, what would change its grade. A falsifier is not a hedge — it is a commitment to be provably wrong later rather than vaguely right forever.

04

Right of reply

Before a grade is published, the covered issuer gets a right of reply: the draft grade, the reasoning, and a window to correct factual errors before the world sees it. Disagreement over judgment doesn't delay publication; factual error does.

I'm a solo researcher publishing this under my own name, not a rating agency with a compliance department between me and my mistakes. When a grade is wrong, the fix is a public changelog entry, not a quiet edit. If you think one of these rules is being bent anywhere on this site, email me and I will look at it in public.