Editorial Standard
Research Methodology
Industrial intelligence is only useful if you can tell what is verified fact, what is sourced consensus, and what is informed analysis. Every Darwin report is graded with a transparent, credit-rating-style system so you always know how much weight to place on a given claim.
Evidence classification (A–E)
Every source and claim is mapped to one of five evidence levels. A report's dominant level summarizes how much of its argument rests on primary evidence versus analytical inference.
Primary Evidence
Government publications, SEC filings, OEM publications, technical papers, standards, and regulatory filings.
Strong Secondary Evidence
Trade associations, industry databases, conference papers, and reputable trade publications.
Industry Estimate
Expert interviews, public market reports, analyst estimates, and internal modeling.
Analytical Assessment
IIOS synthesis, investment theses, inferred fragmentation, and opportunity scoring.
Conceptual / Hypothesis
Future material substitution, conceptual Darwin relevance, and unvalidated opportunity.
Statement-level labels
Within a report, individual sections and claims may carry an inline badge so the nature of a statement is never ambiguous.
Directly supported by primary or strong secondary sources.
An industry estimate or modeled figure, not a verified data point.
IIOS synthesis or interpretation built on the evidence.
A forward-looking or conceptual proposition that is not yet validated.
Flagged as needing independent source validation before it can be relied upon.
The 11-dimension scorecard
Every report carries a Research Integrity scorecard. A single overall confidence star rating sits above six category dimensions scored 1–5, plus three coverage and proprietary-value percentages — so you can see where confidence is strong and where it is thin. Technical and structural claims are often well-sourced even when company and market intelligence are not, while our proprietary analysis and original thinking score consistently high.
Overall confidence (1–5 stars)
A summary rating reflecting how much weight a decision-maker can place on the report as a whole, from Conceptual (1) to Validated Research (5).
Six category dimensions (scored 1–5)
Technical Accuracy
Engineering, scientific, and manufacturing correctness, material accuracy, and system architecture.
Industrial Structure
Accuracy of the supply chain, manufacturing flow, industry organization, and tier relationships.
Company Intelligence
Validated companies, ownership, capabilities, customer mapping, revenue, facilities, and investment history.
Market Intelligence
Market sizing, growth, programs, government funding, industry trends, and demand forecasts.
Investment Analysis
Strength of the PE thesis, fragmentation analysis, roll-up opportunities, and strategic rationale.
Darwin Relevance
How accurately Darwin opportunities are represented — technical applicability, not commercial probability.
Three coverage & proprietary-value measures (0–100%)
Source coverage
The percent of factual statements supported by identifiable sources — government publications, SEC filings, technical papers, company publications, conference papers, trade journals, and industry databases. Below 60% the report is flagged as an analyst draft.
Proprietary intelligence
The percent of the report supported by IIOS's own work — company classifications, supply-chain mapping, engineering tear-downs, industrial taxonomy, opportunity scoring, regional clustering, interview notes, conference intelligence, and knowledge-graph relationships. This metric represents proprietary IP.
Analytical originality
How much of the report represents original IIOS thinking — investment theses, industrial synthesis, fragmentation analysis, material-substitution analysis, cross-market relationships, and opportunity frameworks — rather than summarized public information. Most reports should score highly here.
Analysis type
How the report was predominantly produced, in descending verification order.
Verified Research
Built predominantly on primary and strong secondary sources.
Analyst Synthesis
Sourced framing combined with IIOS interpretation.
Investment Analysis
A developed PE thesis built on the evidence, framing diligence rather than asserting fact.
Directional Assessment
Estimates and modeling; conclusions are directional pending validation.
Conceptual Framework
Outline-stage structure; analysis not yet authored.
Publication status
The editorial lifecycle state, from working draft to publication-ready.
Internal Draft
Early working draft, not circulated.
Research Draft
Authored but below the source-coverage publication threshold.
Source Reviewed
Reviewed against sources; suitable for decision support with noted gaps.
Publication Ready
Meets the full editorial and source-coverage standard.
Living Document
Continuously updated as new sourcing and developments arrive.
The validation checklist
Every report is graded against the same eight-point checklist. The "Research Gaps & Validation Required" section on each report shows exactly which items have been independently confirmed and which still require validation — so nothing hides behind a confident tone.
- Company-level source validation
- Revenue / employee validation
- Ownership validation
- Supplier mapping validation
- Market-size validation
- Customer / program validation
- Transaction history validation
- Technical source validation
The draft threshold
Reports with source completeness below 60% carry a prominent analyst-draft warning. Their conclusions are directional and intended to frame diligence questions — not to be cited as settled fact. This keeps early-stage thinking useful without overstating its certainty.
Illustrative research for demonstration only. The grading framework is designed to make uncertainty explicit; it is not investment advice.