Evidence Weighting
Evidence weighting is the method of ranking and combining evidence sources to determine the most trustworthy value for a field.
Allocator relevance: Prevents false certainty—lets you score “probable” vs “confirmed” and reduces reputational mistakes in outreach.
Expanded Definition
Allocator profiles often include conflicting or partial evidence. Evidence weighting defines how to resolve this: for example, a direct statement from an official filing might outweigh a stale third-party listing; a recent role update might outweigh an older website bio. The output can be a chosen “current best value” plus a preserved set of alternate values.
Weighting is also what makes verification status meaningful: it ties “verified” to evidence strength, not opinion.
Decision Authority & Governance
Governance defines the evidence hierarchy (which sources outrank others), expiry rules (freshness), and what happens when evidence is ambiguous. It should also define when a field must remain “unverified” until additional evidence appears.
Common Misconceptions
- Weighting is arbitrary and subjective.
- Picking one value means other values should be deleted.
- Confidence scores are enough without evidence rules.
Key Takeaways
- Weighting converts messy evidence into defensible fields.
- Preserve contradictions—don’t erase them.
- Weighting must be governed and consistent.