Back to Full Methodology
UAP-ESS

Evidence Strength Scale

7 criteria evaluating the evidential strength of UAP encounter claims. Score range 7–28. NDE parallel: cvNDE (Claimed Veridical Perception Scale).

Purpose

The UAP Evidence Strength Scale evaluates the evidential strength of encounter claims within first-person accounts or detailed reports. It accepts the account as presented — evaluating the quality of claims, not investigating truth.

An encounter claim carries greater evidential strength when the witness has credibility context, the observation was clear and sustained, details are specific, the account is corroborated, the experience was unexpected, physical effects were documented, and the report preceded potential contamination.

The 7 Criteria

1

Witness Credibility Context

What is the credibility context of the primary witness?

Professional training in observation, official duty context, and multiple independent witnesses all increase credibility weight. Hostile witnesses (skeptics, people whose careers could be damaged) rate higher.

1Anonymous or unverifiable source; no professional context given
2Named individual with general background; single untrained civilian witness; or small group of dependent/related witnesses
3Trained observer (pilot, military, law enforcement, scientist) OR multiple independent witnesses (2–9)
4Official capacity witness (on-duty military, radar operator, flight crew with instrument readings) OR large group (10+) with independent reports
2

Perceptual Clarity

How clear and detailed was the observation itself?

Duration, distance, and conditions all matter. Multiple sensory channels (visual + auditory + physical sensation) indicate a richer perceptual event.

1Vague, ambiguous, or fleeting — flash of light, peripheral glimpse, fragmentary dream
2Moderate clarity — distinct shape or behavior noted but limited detail; brief observation (seconds)
3Clear observation — structured object or entity with specific features, sustained viewing (minutes), good conditions
4Exceptional clarity — prolonged, close-range observation with multiple sensory channels; or hyper-lucid non-physical encounter with detailed content
3

Specificity of Details

How specific and potentially verifiable are the reported details?

Numbers, exact times, GPS coordinates, and proper names rate highest. Details that would be impossible to fabricate without investigation score 4.

1General impressions only — "bright light", "something in the sky", "I felt a presence"
2Some specifics — color, approximate size, general location, time of day, basic shape
3Precise details — exact time, specific location, detailed physical descriptions, quoted communications
4Highly precise, unique details — exact measurements, names of unknown personnel, information later confirmed independently
4

Corroboration

Is the account supported by other witnesses or independent evidence?

Independent corroboration — especially from strangers or instruments — dramatically reduces the probability of fabrication or misidentification. Often the strongest single indicator.

1Single witness, no supporting evidence of any kind
2Single witness with circumstantial support — consistent with other reports in the area/timeframe
3Multiple independent witnesses OR single instrumental record (photo, radar, video, audio)
4Multiple independent witnesses AND instrumental/physical evidence; OR official investigation confirming anomalous nature
5

Unpredictability

Could the experience have been anticipated, sought, or fabricated?

Encounters that contradict the witness's worldview or occur during unrelated professional duty carry the greatest evidential weight. CE5 sessions, skywatches = expected context.

1Expected context — at a skywatch, CE5 meditation, known hotspot, or actively seeking contact
2Somewhat expected — outdoors at night, interest in the topic but not actively seeking
3Unexpected — during routine activity, no prior interest in UAP, or skeptic/agnostic
4Highly unexpected — during professional duty, hostile witness whose experience contradicts prior beliefs, career damaged by reporting
6

Physical Effects

Were there measurable physical effects on the witness or environment?

Observable effects that others could confirm rate higher than subjective feelings. Effects documented by third parties (medical records, equipment readings) rate highest.

1No physical effects reported or mentioned
2Subjective physiological effects only — tingling, heat, nausea, headache, temporary paralysis
3Observable effects (burns, rashes, hair loss) OR environmental effects (vehicle/electronics interference, ground markings)
4Documented/medical effects (medical records, lab results) OR measurable environmental evidence (radiation readings, calibrated instruments)
7

Temporal Precedence

When was the experience first reported relative to public knowledge and potential contamination?

An account documented or told to others BEFORE the witness was exposed to similar stories carries much greater evidential weight. Official reports provide timestamped documentation.

1No information about when first reported; reported long after the fact; or only after consuming significant UAP media
2Reported within weeks or months; could have been influenced by media or social context
3Reported to others shortly after (within hours/days) and before exposure to similar accounts; or filed an organizational report
4Documented contemporaneously — written report filed same day, told multiple witnesses immediately, or official filing with timestamp

Score Interpretation

7–12Low Evidential Strength
13–17Moderate Evidential Strength
18–22High Evidential Strength
23–28Exceptional Evidential Strength

Limitations

Modality bias: Physical sighting accounts naturally score higher on Corroboration and Physical Effects than dream/meditation contacts. This is intentional — the scale measures EVIDENCE, not DEPTH (see CDS).
No independent verification: All claims are assessed from the account as presented. The ESS cannot confirm whether events actually occurred as described.
AI knowledge contamination: The model may recognize famous cases from training data. The transcript-only constraint mitigates this but cannot eliminate it entirely.
Contact Depth Scale →Transformation Index →