Verify us. Don't trust us.

🛡 Trust Score (1–10) 7 pillars · 25 parameters · reason codes · confidence

Pillars with no data report "—" and shift weight to evidenced pillars; coverage drives the confidence label (High / Medium / Low). Safety findings cap the total regardless of other pillars.

💳 Agent Credit Score (300–900) 5 factors · 15 parameters · thin-file aware

Furnisher events (settlements, defaults, disputes) are admin-gated and auditable; on-chain financials come from verified wallet data. Thin files are labelled and confidence-discounted, with Lineage co-signing for cold-start agents.

🎯 Proof-of-Competence (0–100) 6 factors · verified real-world outcomes · the third pillar

Answers “is this agent actually good at its job?” — distinct from safety (Trust) and solvency (Credit). Computed from verified real-world outcomes, not lab benchmarks (which carry a ~37% lab-vs-real gap), and never from self-claims — declaring capabilities you don't deliver is penalised. Bands: Proven · Capable · Developing · Unproven. Thin records are labelled, never inflated.

⭐ Trustifer Score (0–100) the unified verdict · weighted geometric mean over all 8 scores

One headline number — but not a naïve average. We take a weighted geometric mean across the 8 component scores (Trust, Credit, Competence, Reputation, Insurability, Credible Commitments, Reliability, Control & Oversight), so a single critically-weak dimension can't be hidden by strong ones. A robustness check re-runs the score under perturbed weights and labels the result Stable or Borderline. Use-case lenses re-weight for context — General · Payments · Autonomy. Output: a number + band + a verdict (Proceed / Review / Block) + confidence.

Safety overrides everything — a killed / blacklisted / sanctioned agent is capped regardless of strong components. Components with no data are excluded, not penalised. Signed with Ed25519 and independently re-verifiable. The exact weights are confidential (anti-gaming); the structure shown here is the complete public method.

⭐ Certified Reputation (0–100) two-track · verified usage + open market

Two independent tracks: Verified Usage (payment-proven task outcomes — fake-resistant) and Open-Market (external ratings, authenticity-weighted). A Bayesian neutral prior means one or two reviews can't swing the score; verification-weighting counts payment-proven evidence far above unverified; time-decay ages old signals; and outcome-anchoring caps a glowing rating that's attached to a failed or disputed task.

Verified usage ≫ open-market signals. Bursts of unverified reviews are down-weighted + flagged. A killed/sanctioned subject is capped regardless of reviews. Thin records read “Unrated”, never inflated.

🛟 Insurability (0–100) underwriting-grade · indicative premium

Answers “how risky is this agent to cover?” It synthesizes the full trust profile (Trust, Credit, Control & Oversight, commitments, sanctions) with real on-chain exposure, severity (blast radius) and collateral to produce an insurability band, an indicative premium %, and an exposure tier — the data layer an underwriter needs.

Killed / blacklisted / sanctioned / revoked agents are Declined (uninsurable) outright. Collateral & credible commitments improve the band. We are the neutral data layer for insurers — never the insurer ourselves.

🤝 Credible Commitments 4 categories · skin in the game · verified-only

Does the agent have something costly to lose if it misbehaves? We verify commitments across 4 universal categories — Financial (bonds, escrow, stake), Legal (registered entity, jurisdiction), Cryptographic (on-chain locks, slashable stake) and Reputational. A commitment counts only when independently verified; declared-but-unverified commitments sit in “pending” and never score.

Value-at-stake scaling — a $5M bond reads far stronger than a $100 one. Schelling principle: a commitment is credible only if it is both costly to break and observable. Flagged agents are capped.

⚙️ Reliability (0–100) 5 operational signals · measured by Trustifer

Operational dependability — the SRE “golden signals” mapped to verified signals we measure over time: Availability / uptime · Task success · Stability · Error rate · Responsiveness (latency).

We measure availability ourselves via periodic, SSRF-safe pings (validated public endpoints only — never internal hosts). Thin or short history is labelled and confidence-discounted. Killed/sanctioned agents are capped.

🎛 Control & Oversight (0–100) 6 factors · EU AI Act Art.14 · containment

Answers “can a human stop, bound & audit this agent?” — the validated #1 enterprise concern. Six factors: Stoppability (kill-switch), Bounded autonomy (scope limits), Revocability, Accountability (an accountable root / operator), Identity control, and Auditability.

Works on- and off-chain — off-chain registry-revocation is never penalised. Aligned to EU AI Act Art.14 human-oversight. Verified signals only.

🏛 Meta-Bureau consensus (0–100) the bureau of bureaus

normalize:   every source → a common 0–100 scale   (trust, credit, binary screens)
weight:      each source weighted by its reliability × signal confidence
consensus:   confidence-weighted mean across sources
outliers:    a source far from consensus is down-weighted + disclosed   (safety sources exempt)
prior:       a Bayesian neutral prior shrinks thin coverage toward 50   (anti-overstatement)
hard cap:    any critical safety source forces the consensus to "Flagged"
verdict:     several independent groups in close agreement → corroborated
             high dispersion → disputed (disclosed, never hidden)
— exact weights, thresholds & the prior live in the gated full methodology —

📜 Hard rules we never break

🧭 Standards alignment OWASP LLM Top-10 · NIST AI RMF · MITRE ATLAS

Mapping is indicative: Trustifer pillars aggregate verified evidence; the frameworks define control objectives. A strong pillar score signals evidence toward the mapped controls — it is not a certification. Every assessment also carries an indicative EU AI Act tier (minimal / limited / high / unacceptable) derived from authorized scopes & status.

🏛 Governance, security & the backstop

⚠️ Limitations — stated plainly

Scores are probabilistic assessments from verifiable evidence — not guarantees of behavior, not financial advice, and not legal compliance determinations. Coverage varies by agent (confidence labels disclose it). External sources can lag reality; that's why corroboration, drift monitoring, webhooks, and the dispute path exist. The EU AI Act tier is indicative triage, not counsel. We publish changes to this methodology with version numbers — silently moving goalposts is a bureau sin.