The five questions
- Who pays?
- Who decides?
- Who benefits?
- What does the organization actually do?
- What cannot be determined from public records?
Eight report-card dimensions
| Dimension | Weight | What is measured |
|---|---|---|
| Financial Transparency and Source Identification | 15 | Documented performance and accountability under the named dimension. |
| Funding Independence and Concentration Risk | 15 | Documented performance and accountability under the named dimension. |
| Mission-to-Action Alignment | 20 | Documented performance and accountability under the named dimension. |
| Physician or Member Governance and Representation | 15 | Documented performance and accountability under the named dimension. |
| Breadth of Support Across Physician Segments | 10 | Documented performance and accountability under the named dimension. |
| Leadership, Conflict Management, and Accountability | 10 | Documented performance and accountability under the named dimension. |
| Legal, Regulatory, and Ethical Record | 10 | Documented performance and accountability under the named dimension. |
| Outcomes and Public Accountability | 5 | Documented performance and accountability under the named dimension. |
Normalized score: dimensions marked NE are excluded from the denominator rather than scored as zero. Evidence coverage is reported separately so a normalized grade cannot conceal missing evidence.
Public-language rules
- The public pages do not instruct readers to contact, challenge, or pressure an organization. Missing information is listed neutrally as evidence that would change the assessment.
- “Documented relationship” does not mean control. “Potential conflict” does not mean misconduct.
- Allegations, pending cases, settlements, dismissals, and final findings are labeled separately.
- Accounting categories are not payer identities. A payer pie is used only when mutually exclusive payer classes reconcile to a valid denominator.
- Foundations, PACs, trusts, subsidiaries, LLCs, and related organizations remain separate unless a documented transfer is included.
Grades and statuses
| Grade | Range | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| A | 90–100 | Strong documented alignment and accountability. |
| B | 80–89 | Generally favorable with limited or manageable gaps. |
| C | 70–79 | Mixed record or meaningful unanswered questions. |
| D | 60–69 | Material documented concerns. |
| F | <60 | Serious documented concerns. |
| NE | - | Insufficient evidence for the dimension. |
Affiliate and preliminary profiles may display an indicative normalized score but are excluded from peer ranking.
Verification and release gates
- Current leaders and titles checked against current official sources.
- Financial amounts and percentages independently recalculated.
- Related entities and political accounts separated.
- Legal status and case disposition checked for adverse claims.
- Public-facing language reviewed for unsupported motive, moral judgment, and internal production terminology.
- Mobile, print, accessibility, and link validation completed.
- Final editorial approval and last-link check completed before publication.
Update, monitoring, and re-grading policy
Blair Compass Organization Intelligence consists of living reports. Automation is used to identify possible changes and prepare a review queue; it does not silently alter a public conclusion or grade.
| Review layer | Cadence or trigger | What is checked | Publication rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Event-triggered review | As needed | Verified correction requests; new audited statements or Form 990s; leadership changes; mergers; major litigation, enforcement, policy reversals, or source corrections. | A change is published only after source verification, scoring review when relevant, and editorial approval. |
| Semiannual freshness review | At least every 6 months | Current leaders, newest financial records, major funding relationships, legal/regulatory developments, mission statements, broken references, and data-age warnings. | The scheduled service queues an evidence-difference review for Goibniu. A web-enabled research agent verifies current sources; no score changes automatically. |
| Annual full re-review | At least every 12 months | The complete research prompt, primary-source ledger, financial reconciliation, contrary evidence, all eight dimensions, and independent review. | Any revised grade is human-approved and recorded with the prior score, new score, reason, and effective date. |
| Continuous source monitoring | When technically feasible | Known official source URLs and filing calendars are checked for new or changed records. | Automated findings are leads, not facts, until the source is opened and verified. |
The release package includes a machine-readable refresh manifest and scheduled queue function. The schedule becomes operational only after the production Netlify and private Goibniu/GitHub integration is enabled.
Organization response and corrections
Organizations and readers may submit primary documentation identifying a factual error, a newer record, or a methodology concern through the correction form. They do not receive editorial approval or veto authority. Material corrections are dated and described in the change log.
Traffic measurement and privacy
Public Organization Evidence Review pages use Plausible Analytics to measure aggregate page views, referral sources, outbound source-link clicks, file downloads, form submissions, and selected interface actions such as opening a review, printing, or copying a summary. The implementation does not send correction-form field contents or other free-text submissions to analytics.
Correction and organization-suggestion forms are processed separately through Netlify Forms and the private Goibniu review queue. Readers should never submit PHI, patient information, passwords, or confidential employer or client material.