NATO Admiralty Code
Every claim, source, or candidate carries a two-axis Admiralty code: the letter A–F grades source reliability; the digit 1–6 grades information credibility. Pill color reflects the worse of the two tiers. Every grade requires a written rationale.
ORIGIN & AUTHORITY
The NATO Admiralty Code is a structured information-grading system long used by intelligence services and military analysts to evaluate the trustworthiness of a piece of information. It separates two distinct dimensions that are often conflated in everyday language:
- Source reliability — how trustworthy is the source itself, regardless of this specific piece of information.
- Information credibility — how much we believe this specific piece of information, regardless of its source.
A reliable source can deliver low-credibility information; an unreliable source can occasionally deliver high-credibility information. Grading them separately is what makes the system useful. Sequenxa applies the Admiralty Code as adapted for OSINT and forensic-public-records work.
THE TWO-AXIS GRADE
A grade has two characters: a letter A–F for source reliability and a digit 1–6 for information credibility. Together they form a code like A1, B2, or F6. The Portal renders this as a small mono pill.
SOURCE RELIABILITY SCALE (LETTER)
| Mark | Pill | Label | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Completely reliable | A source with a long, continuous track record of accuracy. Government databases of record, primary scientific literature, court-of-record documents. | |
| B | Usually reliable | A source historically reliable in the majority of cases. Major newspapers of record, established academic publications, established lab reports from a credentialed laboratory. | |
| C | Fairly reliable | A source whose reliability is mixed or context-dependent. Regional newspapers, secondary academic sources, agency press statements (which can be incomplete or strategic). | |
| D | Not usually reliable | A source whose track record is poor, but not negligible. Tabloids, advocacy publications, partisan blogs. Occasionally surfaces real information; should not be relied upon alone. | |
| E | Unreliable | A source with a history of inaccuracy. Anonymous internet posts, content farms, deliberately partisan content that has misrepresented in the past. | |
| F | Cannot be judged | A source whose reliability cannot be assessed. Anonymous tips, single-instance sources, archives of unknown provenance. |
INFORMATION CREDIBILITY SCALE (DIGIT)
| Mark | Pill | Label | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Confirmed | Confirmed by other independent sources, logically consistent, fits established context. | |
| 2 | Probably true | Not confirmed by other sources but logically consistent and not contradicted. | |
| 3 | Possibly true | Not confirmed; partially consistent with some known context but unverified specifics. | |
| 4 | Doubtful | Not confirmed; possible but contradicted by some context or other sources. | |
| 5 | Improbable | Contradicts known facts but not impossible to be true. | |
| 6 | Cannot be judged | Cannot be evaluated for credibility — the information is too vague, novel, or unverifiable to assess. |
COMBINED GRADE TIERS
| Tier | Reliability | Credibility | Pill | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliable | A, B | 1, 2 | High-confidence; suitable for citation in released documents. | |
| Fair | C, D | 3, 4 | Useable with caveats; cite with explicit acknowledgment of limitations. | |
| Weak | E | 5 | Suspect; include only when contextualized; never load-bearing alone. | |
| Untested | F | 6 | Cannot be assessed; not citable as fact; may be referenced as 'claim made by'. |
REQUIRED RATIONALE
Every grade in the Portal requires a written rationale. The rationale is 1–2 sentences explaining why this specific source received this specific reliability grade, and why this specific information received this specific credibility grade. The rationale is shown on hover of any grade pill and is always present in the underlying data.
This requirement is enforced in the data model (AdmiraltyGrade.rationale is non-empty) and in the UI (the regrade form blocks save with empty rationale). The rationale serves three purposes:
- Defensibility — when a brief is challenged, every grade is explainable.
- Consistency — forces analysts to think about why a grade applies, not just feel.
- Onboarding — new analysts learn the grading system by reading rationales of senior analysts.
APPLICATION EXAMPLES
The examples below are pulled from the live demo dataset. Each shows how a particular Admiralty code maps to a real source and why the analyst chose those two values.
- Source
- NamUs Unidentified Persons Database, Case #UP-189442, accessed 2025-02-09.
- Rationale
- Official federal database record entered by the investigating agency. Authoritative source for profile baseline.
- Case
- SX-2025-0147 · Roane Co. Jane Doe
- Source
- Knoxville News-Sentinel, "Hunters discover human remains east of Kingston," 2024-11-21, p. A4.
- Rationale
- Established local newspaper of record; reporter cites named law enforcement spokesperson directly. Reliable but secondhand.
- Case
- SX-2025-0147 · Roane Co. Jane Doe
- Source
- Sequenxa Internal Memo SX-2025-0147-001, Mendoza A., Clothing Era Analysis, 2025-02-12.
- Rationale
- Analyst-derived inference grounded in industry references; reasoning is sound but conclusions are interpretive rather than definitive.
- Case
- SX-2025-0147 · Roane Co. Jane Doe
- Source
- Greyhound Lines, Eastern Tennessee Public Timetable, October 2001 edition (archived).
- Rationale
- Authentic primary document, but its evidentiary weight for this case is contextual rather than direct.
- Case
- SX-2025-0147 · Roane Co. Jane Doe
- Source
- r/UnresolvedMysteries, "TN Jane Doe in Roane County?", thread posted 2024-12-08, archived 2025-03-10.
- Rationale
- Anonymous social-media speculation. Included for completeness and to model honest treatment of low-grade material — not as evidence.
- Case
- SX-2025-0147 · Roane Co. Jane Doe
On low-grade sources: the inclusion of the E5 source (the r/UnresolvedMysteries thread) is deliberate. Sequenxa does not excludesuch sources — it grades them honestly and contextualizes them in the analyst summary. The presence of E5 sources in the evidence library, with appropriate caveats, demonstrates that Sequenxa’s methodology is honest about what it sees, not selective.
WHEN TO ASSIGN EACH GRADE
◆ Reliability (Letter)
- AGovernment databases, court-of-record documents, primary peer-reviewed scientific literature, original lab reports from credentialed labs. Reserved.
- BMajor newspapers of record, mainstream wire services, established academic secondary sources, established trade publications, cited NamUs derivative records. The default for 'respectable secondary sources.'
- CRegional or local press, non-academic books, agency press statements (which strategically omit), established but partisan publications. The default for 'useful but caveat.'
- DTabloids, advocacy media, partisan blogs with editorial standards.
- EAnonymous internet content, low-quality forums, content farms.
- FSources whose provenance cannot be assessed at all.
◆ Credibility (Digit)
- 1Independently confirmed by at least one other reliable source, OR is the source of record (e.g. NamUs profile).
- 2Not independently confirmed but logically consistent with the rest of the case context.
- 3Possibly true; partial consistency.
- 4Doubtful; some contradictions or weak fit.
- 5Improbable; contradicts known context but not impossible.
- 6Cannot be evaluated.
REGRADING
Grades are not permanent. As new evidence enters the case, prior grades may be revised. The regrade workflow:
- Analyst opens the evidence.
- Clicks
Regrade. - Updates reliability and / or credibility.
- Must provide a new rationale explaining the change.
- The prior grade and rationale are preserved in the evidence’s history.
- A timeline event
EVIDENCE_GRADEDis logged.
Released briefs always cite the grade as it stood at the time of release. If a grade is revised after a brief was released, the revision will appear in the next version of the brief.
USE IN CANDIDATE HYPOTHESES
Candidates are also graded. The grade applies to the overall hypothesis, not to any single source.
- A candidate raised from multiple A1/B2 sources, all consistent, with a strong forensic-profile match: typically B1 or B2.
- A candidate raised from a single C3 source with weak profile alignment: typically D4 or E5.
- An excluded candidate: graded based on the strength of the exclusion, not the strength of the original hypothesis. A candidate excluded on A1 dental evidence is graded B1 (strong exclusion). The grade describes confidence in the overall judgment.
DISPLAY RULES IN THE UI
| Context | Pill size | Position |
|---|---|---|
| Inline citation in body text | sm (20px) | inline-baseline next to the citation reference |
| Evidence card | md (28px) | top-right |
| Candidate card | md (28px) | top-right |
| Brief evidence summary table | sm (20px) | within the table cell |
| Margin annotation gutter | mono text only | right gutter of dossier pages |
| Tooltip on hover (anywhere) | full grade + rationale | tooltip overlay |
The pill is always present when a sourced fact is shown. If no grade is present, the fact must be marked as unsourced (e.g., “internal hypothesis” or “pending grading”).
WHY THIS IS A SEQUENXA SIGNATURE
◆ Two-axis, not one
Source and information are evaluated separately, which is more accurate.
◆ Mandatorily justified
Every grade has a written rationale; vague 'high confidence' labels are not allowed.
◆ Publicly visible
The grading shows up next to every claim in every document.
◆ Honest about weak sources
E5 and F6 grades exist and are used; weak sources are not hidden, they are contextualized.