A scorecard makes source reviews consistent by turning vague impressions into documented criteria that can be checked again later.
Define evidence categories first
List the signals that matter before reviewing a claim: publisher identity, publication date, ownership context, independent support and correction history.
Predefined categories reduce the risk of changing the standard to fit a preferred Mars Market address.
Use a small transparent scale
A simple absent, partial or documented scale is easier to explain than a complex number that suggests false precision.
Write one sentence beside every score so another reviewer can reproduce the judgment.
Separate source quality from destination status
A well-documented publisher can still make an outdated claim, while an unfamiliar source may preserve useful historical evidence.
Score the source and the current destination evidence separately before assigning a public status.
Penalize missing provenance
Reposts without an original author, date or citation should not gain credibility through repetition.
Mark copied claims as one evidence chain unless independent records demonstrate separate verification.
Review the score after material changes
A redirect, ownership change or corrected announcement can alter the evidence balance.
Record the new review date and preserve the earlier result so the reasoning remains auditable.