Fifteen reports withdrawn — data gaps were scored as findings
All 15 reports published on 19 August 2026
Found by us during an internal review, before publication was promoted and before any complaint or right-of-reply request was received.
Our methodology treats a sub-signal we could not verify as excluded: it is removed from the score and from the maximum, so a project is never marked down for a shortfall in our own data collection. Each report page stated this in writing.
In all 15 reports the exclusion never happened. The analysis listed the gaps in prose but assigned every sub-signal a number anyway — 285 sub-signals, none marked as unverifiable. The maximum stayed at 100, so the missing evidence quietly reduced each score. The page told the reader the opposite.
The effect was largest where our crawler performed worst. EigenLayer scored 45 of 100 and was labelled HIGH risk, while its own report recorded that all 18 fetched pages returned the same JavaScript shell and that the documentation, audits and repositories were never retrieved. Marking two of those sub-signals as unverifiable moves the same analysis to 48 out of a maximum of 91.
A second defect surfaced in the same review: two runs of the identical code, half an hour apart, disagreed by 13 points on EigenLayer and 12 on Curve, and moved two projects across risk bands. The cause was our page collection returning different amounts of text on each attempt, not any change at the projects.
What changed
- Scoring now refuses to produce a report whose text lists gaps while no sub-signal is marked unverifiable. The contradiction is a hard error, not a warning: such a report cannot be generated, so it cannot be published.
- Pages that fail to load or come back suspiciously short are re-read once before the result is accepted.
- Every project is now analysed twice, with a fresh collection each time. If the two scores differ by more than 5 points, the report is not published at all.
The 15 reports are withdrawn. Their pages remain at their original addresses and say so. They will be regenerated and republished under the corrected method.