How we verify, at a level buyers can do diligence on.
The shape of the system. The dimensions we measure. What auditors can trace. The standards we align to. Detailed methodology — specific weights, validation matrices, thresholds, review tooling — is shared under NDA with active evaluators.
Validation that scales with what is at stake.
Every facility is classified by the urgency of its most critical service. T1 covers immediate-response services — crisis hotlines, suicide prevention. T4 covers routine services — support groups, general information and referral. T2 and T3 sit in between, covering acute and moderate care.
The classification feeds a validation matrix. Each field on each record is matched to a validation method appropriate to the urgency of the facility and the consequence of the field being wrong. The most consequential fields on the most urgent records receive human review. The least consequential fields on routine records receive automated approval. A wrong phone number at a crisis center is treated differently than a wrong description on a support group listing.
Tier transitions are logged. Every record carries the verification tier it currently holds, the method that placed it there, and the timestamp. Auditors can trace any record back to the verification record that produced it.
Disclosed: tier structure, classification logic, audit trail.
Under NDA: matrix cell-by-cell, tier-transition thresholds, review tooling.
Four dimensions, one per-record number.
The Resource Confidence Score combines four dimensions:
Whether the fields a downstream workflow needs are populated, including the fields closed-loop reporting requires.
Whether the values present pass structural and semantic checks against the HSDS v3.0 schema.
How recently the record was verified, weighted by the volatility of the field type.
Whether the record traces back to a sourced, dated verification event, and what method produced it.
The four dimensions combine into a single score per record, exposed in the API and sortable at query time. Closed-loop programs can require a minimum threshold for any record they act on.
Disclosed: dimensions measured, query-time exposure, threshold-based gating.
Under NDA: dimension weights, scoring algorithm, calibration data.
Standards alignment, end to end.
The graph is built on HSDS v3.0 from the schema up. Org, Facility, and Service hierarchies are preserved end to end. A single agency with five clinics and twenty programs renders as one Org, five Facilities, and twenty Services — not as one row or one hundred rows depending on who exported it.
Schema enforcement is a validation step, not a post-hoc reconciliation. Records that do not conform are flagged at ingest, not after they reach a partner's referral pipe. The graph is currently live across nine endpoints with full schema fidelity.
We align to the 211 HSIS taxonomy where service classifications are required for downstream reporting. Mappings are documented and versioned.
Disclosed: schema, hierarchy preservation, taxonomy alignment.
Under NDA: ingest-time conformance rules, mapping tables.
Verified on cadence, not as a one-time scrape.
Records do not enter the graph and stay frozen. Every record is re-verified on a cadence determined by its tier, the volatility of its field types, and the freshness target the partner has set. Last-month's hours are not today's hours; the graph reflects that.
When a record changes, the change is captured as a diff against the prior verification state. Diff reports are scoped to the geographies and service categories the partner has subscribed to and delivered on the cadence the SOW defines.
Confidence scores update with re-verification. A record that was T2-verified two weeks ago and is now stale will see its freshness component degrade in the score, surfacing it for re-verification before it reaches a downstream workflow.
Disclosed: cadence model, diff delivery, freshness decay.
Under NDA: cadence parameters by tier, diff infrastructure, decay curves.
Detailed methodology and audit documentation available under NDA.
For active evaluators — procurement, InfoSec, technical review, and compliance teams — we run a scoped methodology review under NDA. The review covers the validation matrix in detail, RCS scoring weights, tier transition thresholds, the human review process, and our continuous verification infrastructure.
Pair it with a Network Integrity Report on your existing directory and you have everything you need to take this to procurement.
The verified resource layer underneath closed-loop referral programs.