Intelligence you can check, not intelligence you have to trust.
Each edition checks every tracked bill's status against the state's own record, through a stated cutoff, and each substantive item carries its source and read date. Where a report makes a judgment, it says how firm the judgment is. Rob Shrum answers for all of it. This page describes how that works, because a standard nobody can inspect is a slogan.
What verified actually means.
A verified status means the state's own official record was read for that bill, and the status matches it. Every edition states its source cutoff and the records it read, and each substantive item names the record it came from and the date it was read.
The discipline is deliberately strict about the calls that matter. A bill is not called enacted until the state's own record confirms it became law. Passage of both chambers is not enactment. A bill is not called dead until the state's record shows it is terminal. Where the record is ambiguous, the ambiguity is flagged rather than resolved by guessing.
Enacted bills carry the enactment date and the official citation once confirmed against the state's record. Where enactment is confirmed and the citation is not yet, the report says citation pending rather than leaving a blank or inventing one.
Likelihood is stated in words, with the event and the window named.
A forward read names the event it expects and the period it covers, then says how likely that is, in words from one scale, never as a bare number. A call built on a sponsor's stated plans reads differently from one built on pattern, and the report says which. Where there is no basis for a call, the report says so rather than guessing.
A likelihood is a living assessment. A call is revised when new evidence changes the expected event, its likelihood, its timing or where you should focus, and the revision is dated. In the daily edition, forward-looking items sit in their own section, labeled as predictions and kept apart from bill status.
Four confidence levels, and what each one supports.
Influence Mapper reports map who is working on an issue. Every entry is a claim, and every claim carries a confidence level, its source and the date it was captured. The level shows what is established, what needs qualifying, and what still needs checking, and it travels with the claim wherever the report goes. Confidence is not clearance to publish; your team and counsel decide external use.
The record is its own source. A filing exists, a registration was made, a vote was recorded. Nothing to interpret.
Cite it directlyA citable public artifact establishes it directly: a filing, a roster, a transcript, an attributable statement.
Cite it directlySeveral sources support it, but none states it outright. A working conclusion drawn from evidence.
Describe as an assessmentA pattern suggests it and it is not established. Shown with its reasoning.
A line of inquiry, never a claimThe same words mean the same things everywhere.
The words in your reports mean the same thing every time, so a term never quietly shifts meaning from one morning to the next.
What the work does not claim.
Where we do not know, the report says so rather than manufacturing certainty. Calibrated uncertainty is a feature, not a hedge, and the limits are stated because work that claims everything is work you cannot rely on.
Check the work.
If something here looks wrong, say so. A disputed status is a useful signal and checking it costs little. Tell Rob your issues and states, and he will show you what this looks like against your own landscape.