Researcher
Creates draft records, attaches sources and internal notes, submits for review.
Cannot publish, cannot change a score, cannot change who may see a record.
How the ledger works
Everything here is published so you can argue with it. A score you cannot interrogate is a number we are asking you to take on faith, and that is not what you are paying for.
Provenance
Where the information comes from
We monitor public and authorised sources only: state agencies such as the Georgia Department of Economic Development, the Department of Community Affairs, the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Revenue; federal portals including Grants.gov, SAM.gov and GSA property disposal; county records; local development authorities; and economic data services such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, FRED and the Census Bureau.
Each source carries a recorded reliability rating, a check cadence, and the date it was last checked. We do not automate collection from any source until its terms of use have been read and the review outcome recorded — the database physically refuses to enable automated collection before that has happened.
Every published record names its source and links to it. If our summary and the source disagree, the source is right, and we want to know: there is a correction form on every record.
Editorial workflow
Three people, three different jobs
Separation of duties is enforced by the software, not by convention. Nobody can draft, approve and publish the same record alone.
Reviewer
Checks the record against its sources, approves or returns it with notes, sets the component scores and schedules publication.
Cannot publish.
Editor
Publishes approved records, builds and publishes reports, manages articles and editorial email.
Cannot alter the audit log — nobody can.
Publishing, unpublishing, score changes, access changes, subscription overrides, refunds, suspensions, role changes and deletions are all written to an append-only audit log. There is no interface — for anyone, at any permission level — that can edit or remove an entry.
Scoring
The 100-point score, component by component
Seven weighted components. The weights are fixed so that scores are comparable across records and across weeks.
Financial value25 / 25
Estimated direct value, savings potential, funding amount, acquisition discount and growth potential. Banded rather than linear, because the difference between a $2m and a $2.2m opportunity is noise.
Accessibility20 / 20
How many subscribers could realistically qualify. Deductions compound for geographic restriction, industry restriction, revenue floors, licensing requirements and owner contribution.
Time sensitivity15 / 15
How close the deadline is, whether inventory is limited, and whether awards are first-come, first-served. A record with no deadline scores 3 — not urgent, but still actionable.
Source reliability15 / 15
A primary government source scores 15. An authorised official source scores 13, a licensed source 11, a verified secondary source 8, and an unverified lead 3 or lower.
Capital requirement10 / 10
Lower required capital scores higher, because the component measures who can act. An unresearched requirement scores 5 — neutral — rather than 0.
Complexity10 / 10
The application or acquisition burden. A one-page form and a fifty-page competitive grant are not the same opportunity.
Risk5 / 5
Title risk, redemption periods, clawback terms, program uncertainty. Lower risk scores higher.
Reviewer adjustment
A reviewer may move the calculated total by up to 25 points in either direction when judgement beats the formula. The adjustment is impossible to save without a written reason, the reason is shown to Detailed and Premium members alongside the score, and the change is audited.
Classification
What the bands mean
| Score | Classification | What it means in practice |
|---|---|---|
| 85–100 | Immediate Action | Act this week. High value, few barriers, a deadline that is close. |
| 70–84 | Strong Opportunity | Worth building a file on. Strong on most components. |
| 55–69 | Worth Investigating | Look properly before committing time. Usually a trade-off somewhere. |
| 40–54 | Limited or Specialized | Narrow. Excellent for the few it fits, irrelevant to everyone else. |
| 0–39 | Information Only | Context, not an opportunity. Published because it changes how you read the others. |
A score ranks opportunities against each other. It is not a prediction, not a recommendation, and not a substitute for your own diligence or professional advice.
Freshness
Verification and expiry
Every record carries the date it was last verified. Published records are reverified on a thirty-day cycle; anything past that is flagged for review before it stays in front of you.
Deadline flags are recomputed daily, so a record that quietly lapses overnight is marked expired the next morning rather than sitting in search results looking live. Records that change materially — deadline moved, amount changed, eligibility rewritten, status reopened — generate a new version and can trigger an update alert.