For admissions professionals

This only works if the people who read the files would trust it

We are designing the verification methodology with former admissions officers, and we are looking for more of them. If you have read applications for a living, we want your judgment, and especially your skepticism.

Why you

The rubric is an admissions instrument, not a tech product

Whether a claim reads as verified, and whether a one-page report survives a committee's six-minute read, are questions only people from inside the room can answer. We would rather be corrected early by experts than late by failure.

Question 1 · Credibility

Would you have trusted it?

In committee, would an evidence-tiered report from an independent verifier have carried weight with you? What, specifically, would it take?

Question 2 · Failure modes

Where does it break?

Gaming, liability, equity, committee time. What are we not seeing from inside the room?

Question 3 · Format

What must the report look like?

A file gets minutes, not hours. What does a one-page, claim-level report need to look like to be usable rather than ignored?

Question 4 · Counsel

Would you tell a student to include it?

For a strong, honest applicant: does attaching a verification report help them, and if not, what changes that answer?

What involvement looks like

A conversation first; an advisory seat if it interests you

Most conversations are a single call: your read on the mechanism, the report format, and where it breaks. For those who find the problem interesting, we are assembling a small advisory group of former admissions officers to shape the methodology, the evidence tiers, and the report design as they are built.