# IGS Reported Event Assessment Framework

**Draft v0.1**  
**Status:** Working framework for discussion and pilot use

## Purpose

The IGS Reported Event Assessment Framework is a developing way to document and compare reported anomalous events. It is intended to make records easier to review, identify reports that may warrant further scrutiny, and clarify why other reports may not yet support additional investigation.

The framework does not determine whether a reported event has a paranormal cause. It does not replace laboratory research, forensic analysis, medical assessment, or professional safety advice. It provides a consistent, transparent way to describe two separate questions:

1. How well does the available record support the reported event as precisely described?
2. How strongly have known causes, familiar mechanisms, and other plausible explanations been constrained in accounting for that reported event?

Keeping these questions separate is the central principle of the framework.

Personal, spiritual, cultural, and religious meaning can be an important element of how a witness understands and relates to an event. The framework respects that context, while not using personal belief to establish the cause of an event or assign an ESS or ERS rating.

## Intended use

This framework may be used to:

- compare documented reports without treating them all as equivalent;
- identify cases with stronger records or unresolved explanations that may merit follow-up;
- show where context, documentation, or explanation testing is missing;
- create an audit trail of what was observed, considered, and not known.

It is not intended to produce a probability that a reported event is paranormal, or to provide a final finding about its cause.

## Good-faith reporting and record integrity

Reports are approached as good-faith accounts of a reporter's experience unless there is credible, documented reason to conclude otherwise. This is a starting point for respectful inquiry; it does not establish the literal accuracy, cause, or evidentiary strength of a report.

Confirmed fabrication, material manipulation, or misrepresentation of a record must be documented and disclosed. It may materially reduce confidence in the affected reported event and its supporting record. Such concerns should be considered in proportion to the available facts, rather than automatically used to dismiss unrelated reports or experiences.

Honest error, incomplete memory, misperception, and differences in interpretation are not findings of fabrication. They may be considered as possible explanations when relevant, but should be recorded as possibilities rather than judgments about a reporter's character.

## Open scrutiny and disagreement

Good-faith scrutiny, debate, and challenge are encouraged. Review should focus on the available record, testing methods, assumptions, and assessment of a reported event. It must not be directed at the character, worth, or personal beliefs of people making reports or carrying out the work.

When descriptions of reported events or their assessments conflict, the disagreement should be preserved and examined rather than used as a reason to dismiss either side. Each account or assessment should be considered as far as the available record permits. Original assessors or investigators should have an opportunity to review the conflict, respond to it, and record whether their concern has been resolved to their satisfaction. Unresolved disagreement remains part of the case record.

## Two separate assessments

Each reported event may receive two separate ratings:

- **Evidence Strength Scale (ESS):** how strongly the available record supports the reported event as described.
- **Explanation Review Scale (ERS):** how thoroughly currently identifiable explanations have been examined and how well they account for the reported event.

ESS and ERS answer different questions and remain separate. They are not added, averaged, or converted into a combined score. Each rating must be accompanied by its own written rationale.

A high ERS cannot compensate for weak evidence strength. Reviewing and constraining familiar explanations does not strengthen the underlying record, so every ERS rating should be read alongside the event's ESS rating and the rationale for each.

## Case and reported event

The framework uses two main organizational levels:

- A **case** is the collected record of related reports, investigations, records, and assessments concerning a location, person, situation, or continuing question.
- A **reported event** is one discrete occurrence or experience said to have happened and described precisely enough that its supporting record and possible explanations can be assessed.

> **Working structure:** Case → Reported event → separate ESS and ERS assessments

The word **reported** is important. It allows an event to be documented and assessed without presuming that every detail has already been established as fact.

An investigation, visit, session, date, or location is recorded as context within the case. It does not need to become another formal level in the framework.

For example, a case concerning reported activity at a private residence may include an overnight investigation. During that investigation, the following reported event is documented:

> **Reported event:** At 9:14 p.m., the bedroom door moved approximately 30 degrees.

Supporting details and records may include:

- three witnesses reported seeing the movement;
- one camera recorded it;
- a door-position sensor recorded movement at 9:14 p.m.;
- no person was visible near the door; and
- no meaningful airflow or pressure change was recorded at that time.

These details inform the event's ESS and ERS ratings. They do not each require a separate assessment. The reported event should be described narrowly enough to identify what is being assessed without turning every supporting detail into another scored item.

## Event-specific assessment

Each distinct reported event is assessed separately. A case or investigation may include several reported events, such as an object moving, a sound being heard, and a person reporting a tactile experience. Each event receives its own ESS and ERS ratings because its supporting records, uncertainties, and possible explanations may differ.

Reported events may be linked when a temporal, spatial, or situational relationship is documented. A relationship may guide follow-up or affect which explanations are considered, especially when it was specified in advance, independently observed, time-synchronized, or repeated. A relationship alone does not automatically change either event's ESS or ERS rating.

A related-event note should identify the events, their timing and locations, any prior prompt or expectation, who knew about that prompt, the available independent records, and any plausible shared cause.

Similar reports separated across time may be documented as a **reported historical pattern**. Each underlying reported event or record has its own record provenance and must be evaluated on its own merits. The age, repetition, or similarity of a pattern can provide useful context and guide follow-up, but does not by itself increase the ESS or ERS of a current reported event. A historical pattern does not receive its own ESS or ERS rating under this version of the framework.

Corroboration must concern the same reported event being assessed, such as two witnesses independently reporting the same voice at the same time. Similar historical reports may provide pattern context, but they do not by themselves corroborate the details of a current event.

The number of reports alone does not establish strong corroboration. A summary stating that many people reported something remains a third-party account unless the underlying reports are available. When documenting a pattern, the independence, record provenance, timing, specificity, and possible shared expectations of the reports should be considered.

## 1. Evidence Strength Scale (ESS)

ESS rates the support for a specific, precisely described reported event. It does not rate the honesty, character, or worth of a person making a report.

| ESS | Description |
| --- | --- |
| **0** | **Third-party or hearsay report.** The reported event is relayed by someone who did not directly observe or experience it. |
| **1** | **Single report.** One person provides an account of an experience or observation. |
| **2** | **Corroborated report.** Independent agreement or basic contemporaneous documentation is available. |
| **3** | **Meaningfully documented event.** Corroborating documentation is available, but important gaps in record provenance, completeness, or context remain. |
| **4** | **Strongly documented event.** Original records are preserved, record provenance and timing are documented, relevant context is available, and multiple sources substantially agree. |
| **5** | **Independently verified under documented conditions.** ESS 4 conditions are met, key variables are monitored, raw records are available, and the relevant record or process receives meaningful independent review. |

ESS 5 does not require that an event can be produced on demand or transferred to a laboratory. It recognizes the strongest practical form of field documentation: an event captured under monitored conditions and independently verified.

## Independent review

Independent review is an assessment of a relevant record or process by a person or group not materially involved in collecting, creating, or making the original assessment of that record. The reviewer must have sufficient access to the relevant materials and method information to assess the stated scope of their review.

To support an ESS 5 rating, the review's scope, date, relevant materials, and any relationships or conflicts of interest must be documented. The review must be kept in a durable format and made available to the people who requested it or who need to evaluate the assessment. It does not need to be written; an audio, video, presentation, or other accessible format may qualify.

Access may be appropriately limited to protect a private residence, personal identity, sensitive personal history, or other confidential material. A limited-access review should state what has been withheld and why, while providing enough information for the intended reviewers to understand the review's scope and conclusions.

## 2. Explanation Review Scale (ERS)

The Explanation Review Scale records how thoroughly currently identifiable explanations for a reported event have been examined and how well they account for it, given the checks that were possible. It should name the known causes, familiar mechanisms, and other plausible explanations reviewed, such as drafts, vibration, lighting, equipment behavior, misperception, or accidental contact. These explanations are compared with one another according to how well each accounts for the reported event. The framework does not require a paranormal explanation to be proposed or treated as the default alternative.

ERS is not a paranormal-likelihood score. Higher ratings indicate that familiar explanations account for less of the reported event after documented review. A higher rating does not prove an extraordinary explanation or imply that every possible cause has been eliminated.

| ERS | Description |
| --- | --- |
| **0** | **Not assessed.** There is insufficient context to meaningfully compare explanations. |
| **1** | **Known cause established.** A known cause or familiar mechanism is directly observed or otherwise established. |
| **2** | **Known cause readily accounts for the event.** A known cause or familiar mechanism can reasonably account for the reported event. |
| **3** | **Competing explanations remain plausible.** More than one account remains viable and has not been adequately tested. |
| **4** | **Leading explanations constrained.** Leading known causes, familiar mechanisms, and other plausible explanations have been partly checked, constrained, or tested. |
| **5** | **Leading explanations not supported.** The leading known causes, familiar mechanisms, and other plausible explanations considered were specifically assessed and did not adequately account for the reported event. |

## Key terms used in this framework

These are practical definitions for applying this draft. The IGS Terminology section is intended to provide the fuller, canonical reference as the framework develops.

- **Assessment:** the documented process of applying ESS and ERS to a specific reported event, including the reasons for the ratings and any relevant limitations.
- **Assessor:** the person or group responsible for reviewing the available information, assigning the ESS and ERS ratings, and documenting the basis for them. An assessor does not need to be the original investigator or a witness.
- **Case:** the collected record of related reports, investigations, records, and assessments concerning a location, person, situation, or continuing question.
- **Competing explanation:** one of two or more plausible accounts compared as possible explanations for a reported event. The explanations compete with one another to account for the available record; none is presumed to be paranormal.
- **Corroboration:** independent agreement or documentation that supports the same reported event being assessed. Agreement is more useful when the sources were not shaped by the same prompt, expectation, or shared information. Similar reports across time provide pattern context, not corroboration of a current event.
- **Event detail:** an observation, measurement, condition, or other piece of information that supports, qualifies, or provides context for a reported event. Event details inform the assessment but do not each require separate ESS and ERS ratings.
- **Independent review:** an assessment by a person or group not materially involved in collecting, creating, or making the original assessment of the relevant record or process.
- **Key variables:** conditions or factors that could reasonably affect the reported event or the explanations being considered, such as access, airflow, vibration, lighting, timing, or equipment state.
- **Record provenance:** the documented origin, custody, and history of a specific record, including when possible how it was created, transferred, stored, or changed. A history of similar reports is a reported historical pattern, not the provenance of a current reported event or record.
- **Raw record:** the earliest available, unedited version of a record, together with relevant associated information where available. It may require appropriate privacy protections or limited access.
- **Record:** material that documents, supports, contextualizes, or bears on a reported event, including accounts, notes, media, sensor data, and logs.
- **Related event:** a separate reported event linked to another by documented timing, location, circumstances, or another relevant relationship. Each related event retains its own ESS and ERS assessments.
- **Report:** an account of a reported event or experience, whether spoken, written, recorded, or otherwise communicated.
- **Reported event:** one discrete occurrence or experience said to have happened and described precisely enough that its supporting record and possible explanations can be assessed. A reported event may be past or non-repeatable; assessment does not require it to be recreated.
- **Reporter:** a person who provides a report. A reporter may be a witness, investigator, or someone relaying another person's account.
- **Witness:** a person who directly observes or personally experiences a reported event. The term includes experiences involving sight, sound, touch, or other perception and does not by itself establish an external cause.

## Draft development checklist

- develop a reusable case-note template;
- pilot the framework against sample cases and revise unclear criteria;
- set an explicit boundary for considering medical or psychological explanations;
- turn the methodological influences into complete, linked references.

## Required case note

Ratings are provisional. They may move up or down as documentation is authenticated, new records become available, explanations are tested, or earlier conclusions are revised. Every rating should be accompanied by a short written note. At minimum, record:

1. **Reported event:** a precise description of what is said to have happened or been experienced.
2. **Context:** date, location, participants, and relevant conditions, where available.
3. **Available record:** what documentation or corroboration exists.
4. **ESS rationale:** why the evidence-strength rating was assigned.
5. **Explanations considered:** the known causes, familiar mechanisms, and other plausible accounts reviewed.
6. **ERS rationale:** what was reviewed, checked, tested, constrained, or remains unknown.
7. **Limitations and next step:** what additional record, check, or test would most improve the assessment.
8. **Assessor:** the name or identifier of the person or group assigning the rating.
9. **Assessment date and framework version:** when the assessment was made and which version of the framework was used.
10. **Revision history:** any previous ESS or ERS rating, what changed, and why the rating was revised.
11. **Related events:** other reported events, if any, and the basis for linking them.
12. **Scrutiny and disagreement:** conflicting descriptions or assessments, the responses received, and any unresolved points.

## Examples

### Example A: object falls from a shelf

**Reported event:** "A book fell from an upper shelf at 9:14 p.m."  
**ESS:** 3  
**ERS:** 2

Several people observed the fall and an original video file is available. Shelf stability, vibration, airflow, and accidental contact were not formally tested. The event is meaningfully documented, but known causes and familiar mechanisms can readily account for it.

### Example B: object moves across a room

**Reported event:** "A small object moved approximately two metres across an unobstructed floor."  
**ESS:** 3  
**ERS:** 3

Multiple observers and one video record the reported movement. The scene conditions, sight lines, possible contact, airflow, and possible mechanical methods have not been adequately tested. The record may justify follow-up, but competing explanations remain plausible.

### Example C: focused follow-up

**Reported event:** "The same object repeatedly moved across a marked surface during a documented session."  
**ESS:** 4  
**ERS:** 5

The setting, raw records, and relevant conditions are preserved. Leading known causes and familiar mechanisms were tested and did not account for the observations. These ratings do not establish a paranormal cause; they identify a documented event that warrants closer scrutiny and independent follow-up.

### Example D: strong record, known cause

**Reported event:** "A door opened without visible human contact."  
**ESS:** 5  
**ERS:** 1

Multiple synchronized cameras, a door-position sensor, airflow and pressure telemetry, and preserved original records document the event. An independent reviewer verifies the relevant record and process. Follow-up establishes that a pressure difference across the door caused it to open. These ratings show that strong evidence can support a known cause.

## Development and feedback

This is a working framework. The first goal is clarity and consistency, not finality. Its ratings and definitions should be revised through pilot use, reviewer comparison, documented disagreements, and public feedback.

The canonical draft should be maintained in a public GitHub repository with:

- versioned releases and a change log;
- issue templates for definition feedback, examples, and proposed revisions;
- discussion space for substantive methodological questions;
- a clear distinction between public framework feedback and private case records containing sensitive information.

## Methodological influences

The framework is influenced by structured comparison of competing hypotheses and by forensic principles that distinguish observations from conclusions. These influences inform the framework's caution and transparency; IGS does not claim that ESS or ERS are forensic or laboratory standards.

- Richards J. Heuer Jr., *Psychology of Intelligence Analysis*, chapter 8: "Analysis of Competing Hypotheses."
- UK Forensic Science Regulator, *Forensic science activities: interpretation and communication*.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology, *Evidential Statistics*.