PRODUCT
The verification engine.
GauntletScore takes a document you would otherwise have to trust on faith and returns a deterministic trust score, a per-claim audit trail, and a cryptographically signed certificate. This page describes how.
THE PIPELINE
From document to verdict in six stages.
- 01
Submit.
Upload a document or send it through the API. The system extracts the factual and causal claims it contains.
- 02
Gather evidence.
Seven agents drawn from four independent model providers check each claim against primary sources: SEC and EDGAR filings, court records, regulatory text, the medical literature, live search, and a deterministic math verifier for anything arithmetic. The agent roles are fixed: an orchestrator, an adversarial skeptic, financial and strategic perspectives, an evidence analyst, a pattern-recognition analyst, and a commercial-risk analyst. No agent is implemented by the model that generated the document under review.
- 03
Challenge.
Findings are argued across multiple rounds. Claims that survive must survive against evidence, not against agreement. What cannot be resolved is marked inconclusive rather than guessed.
- 04
Test the reasoning.
A dedicated causal pass examines every cause-and-effect claim for temporal order, proportionality, confounders, and logical structure. Broken reasoning counts heavily against the document; sound reasoning earns only a small positive weight, because internal consistency is not external proof.
- 05
Score.
The verdicts become a Bayesian posterior computed by deterministic math. No language model runs in the scoring layer, and an automated integrity test fails the build if anyone wires one in. The same evidence always produces the same score.
- 06
Sign.
The result ships as the Gauntlet Report: the score with its 95% interval, every claim with its verdict and source, the full transcript, and a cryptographically signed, tamper-evident certificate.
INSIDE THE SUM
Not all evidence counts the same.
Each verdict carries a likelihood ratio. Source quality weights it, so a weak source moves the score less, and what cannot be verified moves it not at all.
| Verdict | LR | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed by primary source | 9.0 | strong push up |
| Partial / secondary support | 3.0 | moderate push up |
| Internally consistent only | 1.5 | small push up |
| Unresolved / unverifiable | 1.0 | no effect, neutral |
| Likely false | 1/3 | moderate push down |
| Debunked | 1/9 | strong push down |
A confirmation and an equal debunk cancel exactly. The engine carries no built-in optimism. (9.0 x 1/9 = 1.0)
VERIFIED MEMORY
Verification compounds.
Facts verified in one run persist to a knowledge graph and are pre-fetched on subsequent runs. In our validation study, the local deployment built a persistent graph of 5,210 verified facts from 19,128 tool calls across twenty company evaluations, dominated by structured retrieval against authoritative sources. The result of each verification makes the next one faster and deeper.
THE OUTPUT
A score you can defend, and the record behind it.
The Gauntlet Report contains the trust score with a 95% interval that widens when evidence is thin, every flagged claim with its verdict and the primary source behind it, the full debate transcript, and a cryptographically signed, tamper-evident certificate recording what was checked, against which sources, and with what result. The score is a triage signal. The transcript is the audit trail. The certificate is the proof the record has not been altered.
BOUNDARIES
Stated limits, on purpose.
GauntletScore does not assess the merits of your argument, does not replace professional judgment, and does not verify what no authoritative source can confirm. A claim it cannot check is reported as unverifiable, not as false, and moves the score neither up nor down. Our validation study documents eight categorical ways the pipeline can misfire, published in the paper, because anyone using a verification system in production deserves to know exactly how it can be wrong.