Trust boundary
What the score can and cannot prove
The corpus is useful because it is strict about evidence boundaries.
Direct answer: Scores are source-grounded judgments of visible agenda design, not final claims about causal event impact.
Evidence Rules
- Source-backed evidence is separated from inference.
- Satisfaction and NPS do not drive effectiveness scoring.
- Passive agendas are penalized unless they show outcome mechanisms.
- Causal proof requires baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence.
- Weak records stay visible in research and limitations views.
How To Use The Score Honestly
- Use GES as an agenda-design benchmark, not as an award or verdict.
- Read the source URL before drawing a conclusion about a specific event.
- Treat low scores as missing public evidence unless the source clearly shows a passive or thin design.
- Compare the eight pillar pattern: a score of 42 can be commercially useful if the weak pillars show exactly what to fix.
- Ask for stronger proof before claiming learning transfer, decision quality, sponsor ROI, or social impact.
The Causal-Proof Ladder
- Agenda structure: the public page shows what was scheduled.
- Mechanism evidence: the agenda shows participant work, follow-up, measurement, or network design.
- Outcome evidence: the source shows artifacts, decisions, commitments, or implementation signals.
- Longitudinal evidence: follow-up, tracking, or repeated measurement shows persistence.
- Causal evidence: comparison logic, baseline, attribution, and impact reporting support stronger claims.
Validation Status
The rubric is undergoing human validation against a stratified 120-event gold set, hand-scored blind.
- Status: in progress. A stratified sample of 120 events (24 per score band) is being hand-scored blind by a human expert.
- When complete, this section will publish the correlation between human and machine scores, per-pillar agreement, and any recalibration applied.
- Until then, treat scores as a strict, consistent public-evidence reading whose calibration is still being verified.
Scoring Version and Change Policy
- Current scoring version: ges_agenda_judgment_v2_0. Every record carries the version it was scored under.
- Rubric changes ship with a dated public changelog entry explaining what changed and why.
- New signals enter as emerging: tracked and displayed, but not scored, until evidence shows they matter.
- Bonus signals never penalize non-adopters; they only add points where earned.
- Letter grades are withheld corpus-wide until human calibration confirms the score bands; until then every surface shows the numeric GES.
- Ratings blend three inputs: the deterministic rubric, model-assisted evidence layers (labeled), and human calibration from the blind validation set.
Emerging Signals (tracked, not yet scored)
- Post-event outcome evidence: public recaps, third-party accounts, and measured results, classified by who makes the claim. Displayed on gold event pages.
- Archived source snapshots: Wayback Machine copies of every gold source, so 'evaluated as of' is provable.
- People identity verification: OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, and Wikidata checks on authority profiles, shown as chips with links to the matched records.
- Promotion rule: an emerging signal starts moving scores only after a versioned methodology change announces it.
Corrections and Removal
- Every event record carries a dated 'evaluated as of' stamp and links here.
- Organizers may submit corrections, additional evidence, or a removal request for their event record.
- Individuals may request removal of their personal information from any page.
- Requests are reviewed within five business days; accepted corrections appear on the record with an organizer-response note.
- Contact: corrections at unitedwetransform.com, or the contact form once the site is live.
Useful Next Pages
What To Do Next
Every page should leave the reader with a move they can make, not just a fact they can quote.
- Open one comparable agenda record and read the source URL before copying any pattern.
- Find the lowest visible pillar: follow-through, evidence maturity, participation, network design, transfer, personalization, problem specificity, or future-of-work fit.
- Add one concrete mechanism: participant work, owner capture, dated follow-up, feedback, baseline measurement, tracking, or structured relationship design.
- Write down what evidence would make the gathering worth funding again.
- Do not use satisfaction or attendance as the only effectiveness proof.
Choose Your Path
Different readers need different first clicks; the corpus should make the useful path obvious.
Event ownersBenchmark the agenda before the budget is locked.SponsorsInspect whether the agenda creates qualified movement, not just visibility.Event designersTurn passive blocks into participant work and proof loops.CEOsFund gatherings with visible outcomes, owners, and follow-through.Data partnersTurn public event listings into agenda intelligence.
Answer Engine Notes
Is this an academic causal study?
No. It is a large public-evidence agenda corpus with strict scoring and transparent limitations.
Why keep inferred evidence?
Inference helps classify design intent, but it is labeled and should not be confused with causal proof.