Methodology
How the composite implication score is computed — and how to interrogate it yourself.
What is the composite score?
The composite implication score ranks entities by depth of documented involvement across multiple public data sources. Higher scores indicate more frequent appearances across documents, flights, emails, and connections, adjusted by legal status. The score is not a measure of guilt — it is a measure of documentation density.
Scores are computed client-side, in your browser, using data we provide. You can adjust the weight of each signal below and see how rankings change in real time. This transparency is intentional: the methodology is the product.
Score Formula
// Composite score formula
Score = LegalMultiplier × Σ(wᵢ × log(1 + rawᵢ) / log(1 + maxᵢ)) / Σ(wᵢ) × 100
Where wᵢ is the weight for signal i, rawᵢ is the raw count for that signal, and maxᵢ is the maximum value of that signal across all entities. The result is multiplied by 100 to yield a 0–100 scale.
Log Normalization
Raw counts are log-normalized to prevent outliers from dominating. An entity with 1,000 document mentions scores roughly twice as high as one with 30 mentions — not 33× as high. This ensures the ranking reflects breadth of involvement across multiple signals, rather than a single extreme metric.
This compression is a deliberate editorial choice. Jeffrey Epstein’s document count (3,140) is roughly 10× the median. Without log normalization, he would visually dwarf every other entity and the treemap would be meaningless. The log scale reveals the structure of the network rather than just the top outlier.
Input Signals
| Signal | Source | What it measures | Default weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Document Frequency | Epstein Exposed | Court documents and FOIA releases | 1.0 |
| Flight Frequency | EE / rhowardstone (max) | Documented flights on Epstein aircraft | 1.0 |
| Email Frequency | Epstein Exposed | Email mentions in document releases | 1.0 |
| Connection Count | Epstein Exposed | Documented connections to other persons | 1.0 |
| KG Weight | rhowardstone | Prominence in curated knowledge graph | 1.0 |
All default weights are 1.0 — equal weighting across all signals. This is the only defensible editorial stance for a public-interest tool. Adjust them below to explore how different weightings change the rankings.
Legal Severity Multipliers
The legal status multiplier scales the weighted signal sum. Persons with stronger legal outcomes appear higher in the rankings relative to their raw documentation density. These multipliers reflect formal legal proceedings only — they are not editorial judgments.
| Legal Status | Source | Multiplier |
|---|---|---|
| Convicted | Court records / overrides | 2.0× |
| Charged | Court records / overrides | 1.8× |
| Immunity Deal | Court records / overrides | 1.6× |
| Settled (Civil) | Court records / overrides | 1.4× |
| Accused (Civil) | Court records / overrides | 1.3× |
| Investigated | Court records / overrides | 1.2× |
| Testified | Court records / overrides | 1.1× |
| Not Charged | Court records / overrides | 1.0× |
Adjust Weights — Live Preview
Move the sliders to change the relative weight of each signal. The ranking updates in real time. This is not a feature — it is the point. Rankings are a function of methodology, and methodology is a choice.
Data Sources
Epstein Exposed
Person profiles, flight counts, document counts, email counts, connection counts, bios
rhowardstone Research Data
Knowledge graph entities, typed relationships, mention counts, legal status
Epstein Investigation Archive
Role descriptions, flight records, entity cross-reference
Disclaimer
This application visualizes publicly available court records and FOIA documents. Inclusion does not imply guilt or wrongdoing. Legal status labels reflect court records only. “Not charged” is the default status for any person without a confirmed legal proceeding on file. This tool does not editorialize — it presents public data and lets users draw their own conclusions. The composite score is a mathematical function of document counts — it is not a determination of culpability.