One issue I keep running into is false positives from high-authority sources: a single regulator PDF or an old enforcement action can outweigh dozens of neutral results, even when the context has materially changed.
For those working in OSINT, risk, or search analysis: how do you usually validate false positives vs. true adverse signals at scale? Do you weight authority differently, or apply temporal or contextual decay?
paolocermelli•1mo ago
What helped a bit was separating authority detection from risk scoring. I treat authority hits as a flag (“this entity has regulatory history”) rather than letting them linearly outweigh everything else.
Then I layer:
temporal decay (old authority actions lose weight but never fully disappear),
contextual confirmation (are there follow-up articles, remediation, license reinstatements, or ongoing disputes?),
and SERP clustering (one PDF echoed 20 times ≠ 20 independent signals).
At scale, I’ve found that counting distinct adverse narratives matters more than raw authority presence. Authority is a binary condition; persistence and multiplicity are what indicate current compliance risk.