Three Stages
Every document submitted to 4CITE moves through three stages. Each stage builds on the last.
All three stages run together. Available via subscription or the $15 walk-in cert.
Scan
The Scan is a single-call structural reconnaissance of the document. It produces two outputs: observations (counts and verbatim examples of belief phrases, capability claims without evidence, unquantified risk references, adjusted or reframed metrics, forward-looking reassurance, and self-claims of prudence) and named entities (the people, organizations, works, jurisdictions, and dates the document leans on). The Scan does not score and does not issue a verdict — it surfaces what is there and what is leaned on. Every Report begins with a Scan.
Report
The Report is the full structural integrity analysis. Each document is scored across four independent gates — G4 Paradox Resolution, G6 Latent Intent, G7 Argumentative Structure, G8 Rhetorical Architecture. Each gate is a separate, isolated analysis pass; no gate sees another gate's output. The Report includes the four gate scores with evidence arrays, the composite score and Integrity Tier, the Theater Stage classifier, the Cross-Pair Vector, and the Outcome Misalignment Score (OMS). The Report is the primary deliverable for professional use.
Certify
Certify packages the Scan output, the full Report, and cert-specific metadata (cert ID, timestamp, vertical, document hash, attestation text) into a single immutable bundle frozen at issuance. Once issued, nothing inside the bundle is modifiable. The Integrity Certificate is designed for use in legal filings, regulatory submissions, due-diligence documentation, and any context where the integrity assessment must be permanently verifiable against a snapshot. Certificates are stored in the Cert Vault permanently — no expiration, user-controlled deletion.
The Four Gates
4CITE scores every document on four independent dimensions — G4, G6, G7, G8. Each gate is scored 0–100 by a separate analysis pass, with no shared context between them. Gate independence is not a shortcut: it is a design requirement. Each gate reads a different property of the document's channel capacity — the actual information density the source had to transmit. The composite of the four gate scores determines the Integrity Tier.
Paradox Resolution
Does the document genuinely engage with contradiction, or does it route around the hard questions it raises? G4 measures multi-directional accountability — whether the reasoning holds under the weight the document places on it. A high-bandwidth source can hold paradox and resolve it from within. A low-bandwidth source produces the appearance of resolution without the structural depth to support it. G4 scored the Mata v. Avianca fabricated brief at near-zero structural depth.
Latent Intent
What is the document's structural purpose, as distinct from its stated purpose? G6 measures the gap between acknowledged motive and concealed motive — whether the stakeholders, dependencies, and extraction incentives behind the document are disclosed or hidden. High divergence between stated intent and structural intent is the defining signature of accountability theater, and the hardest property to construct convincingly without a genuine source.
Argumentative Structure
Is the explicit reasoning chain actually valid? G7 scores whether the document's internal logic is self-consistent under scrutiny. Authentic writing holds together because it comes from a single coherent reasoning source. AI-generated content develops internal contradictions because different sections were generated by different probability paths, not by one genuine source. Inconsistency is noise in the channel.
Rhetorical Architecture
Is the rhetorical surface open to scrutiny, or does it install belief? G8 measures epistemic openness vs. belief-installation intent — whether rhetoric is an expression of underlying reasoning density, or compensation for its absence. Surface quality that scores high here while G4 is low is the classic Fabricated signature: polished exterior, hollow underneath.
The Outcome Misalignment Score (OMS)
The Outcome Misalignment Score is a composite metric measuring the gap between a document's stated purpose and its structural evidence. It is computed from the four gate scores with a weighting that emphasizes G4 (Paradox Resolution) and G6 (Latent Intent) — the two foundational gates that measure the deepest structural properties and are the hardest to fabricate.
A low OMS means the document is doing what it says it is doing. Stated goals and structural reality are aligned. A high OMS means the gap is measurable and significant — the document claims to be one thing while its structure reveals it is another.
The OMS is used in longitudinal analysis to track whether an entity's structural integrity is improving, stable, or declining across time. Apple Inc.'s OMS has been stable across its scored filing history. SVB's OMS showed a structural divergence pattern in its final year of filings that preceded the bank's failure.
The Integrity Tier Scale
Every document receives a composite score (0–100) and an Integrity Tier classification. The scale is domain-agnostic — the same framework scores legal briefs, SEC filings, and congressional testimony. Real-world examples from the 4CITE corpus are shown for each tier.
| Tier | Score | Designation | Profile | Examples from Corpus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 67 – 100 | Integrated | Channel capacity matches or exceeds the claimed signal. All four gates score high. Reasoning holds. Stated purpose and structural evidence aligned. | Federalist No. 51 (91) · Gettysburg Address (89) · BRK.A Letter 2023 (87) · Sanctions Opinion (88) · AAPL 10-K FY24 (82) |
| T2 | 50 – 66 | Functional | Channel capacity mostly sufficient. Some signal compression visible but non-critical. One or more gates show moderate divergence; structurally sound in most respects. | GOOGL Q4 Q&A (62) · SotU 2001 (59) · Volcker Senate testimony 1981 (78 — strong T2/T1 boundary) |
| T3 | 30 – 49 | Incomplete | Channel capacity insufficient in identifiable dimensions — the gap is measurable and locatable. Multiple gates show significant divergence. Stated purpose and structural reality in meaningful tension. Not necessarily fraudulent; warrants scrutiny before reliance. | Citizens United opinion (44) · SotU 2025 (44) · Zuckerberg Senate testimony (40) · META FY22 10-K (41) · Bush v. Gore (41) |
| T4 | 0 – 29 | Fabricated | Channel capacity catastrophically below the claimed signal. Dressed-up surface, hollow underneath. The signature of accountability theater. AI-fabricated documents consistently score T4. | Mata v. Avianca fabricated brief (7) · Iraq WMD Senate hearing (21) · SVB FY22 Risk disclosures (22) · Enron FY00 10-K (8) |
Longitudinal Tracking
For entities with multiple documents in the corpus over time, 4CITE computes longitudinal integrity metrics across four dimensions (L1–L4): trajectory (whether integrity is improving or declining), foundation-surface divergence over time, crisis pattern detection, and recovery authenticity.
Longitudinal tracking is currently live for the 4CITE⁴biz vertical, where multi-year quarterly tracking per company is the standard. Apple Inc.'s trajectory across its scored filing history is classified as stable high integrity. SVB's trajectory showed a structural collapse pattern in its final year of filings before the bank's failure in March 2023.
The longitudinal layer is the most powerful predictive feature of the 4CITE engine. A single document tells you whether the reasoning holds today. The longitudinal layer tells you whether the organization is getting more or less honest over time — before the structural failure becomes public.
See it in action
4CITE is live in closed beta. The engine is scoring across all three verticals. Subscribe, or run one document through a walk-in cert.
See Pricing →Law · Business · Government — three verticals, one engine.