> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://auramarkets.mintlify.site/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Confidence tiers

> How research items get a 0–1 score, and how that score changes over time.

Every item in [Research](/research/overview) carries a **confidence score** between 0 and 1. The score is the system's best guess at how seriously a thoughtful reader should take the claims in the piece.

## The score, briefly

| Score           | Tier     | Color          | What it means                                                            |
| --------------- | -------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| **0.80 – 1.00** | High     | Bright green   | Strong author track record, specific testable claims, often corroborated |
| **0.60 – 0.80** | Mid-High | Light green    | Solid author, reasonable specificity, worth reading carefully            |
| **0.40 – 0.60** | Medium   | Yellow / amber | Mixed signals — read with skepticism                                     |
| **0.20 – 0.40** | Mid-Low  | Light red      | Either weak author or vague/promotional claims                           |
| **0.00 – 0.20** | Low      | Bright red     | Skip unless you have a specific reason                                   |

The badge on each card shows the score. The default sort on the [browse page](/research/browsing) is **Newest**, but you can sort by confidence if you want signal-first.

## What goes into the score

Roughly:

* **Author reliability** — historical track record on prior calls (where measurable). Substack writers and X accounts are scored separately.
* **Claim specificity** — "NVDA is a buy" scores worse than "NVDA's data-center revenue will accelerate to 50% Q/Q because of X, with X being a falsifiable claim about contract pipeline."
* **Corroboration** — does another source independently make a similar claim? Multiple confirms raise the score.
* **Source quality** — paid newsletters with a track record score above free, anonymous threads.
* **Hedging language** — pieces full of "might," "could," "potentially" score lower than confident specific claims.

## Lifecycle and staleness

Confidence isn't static. A piece written 6 months ago about Q4 earnings is **stale** by Q1 — the claims either resolved or didn't, and the score collapses.

Three lifecycle states:

| State     | Display                    | Meaning                                        |
| --------- | -------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- |
| **Fresh** | Full opacity               | Claims are live, score is current              |
| **Aging** | Slight fade                | Old enough that some claims may be resolving   |
| **Stale** | Heavy fade (\~55% opacity) | Old enough that the piece is mostly historical |

The fade is visible in the feed — older pieces literally dim. Your eye learns to treat them as reference, not signal.

## What confidence is *not*

* **Not a return prediction** — high-confidence calls can be wrong. The score reflects how well-reasoned the case is, not the future.
* **Not censorship** — low-confidence pieces still appear in the feed (just with the badge); you decide what to read.
* **Not personalization** — the score doesn't reflect your views or holdings. Same score for everyone.

## How to use it

* **Filter to High when time-constrained** — the most efficient first pass through a busy day's content
* **Sort by Confidence on a researched name** — the highest-scored takes on \$XYZ are the ones that earn the read
* **Don't blindly trust** — a high-confidence call from a strong author still gets your skepticism. The score is a starting point, not a verdict.