How we verify.

Calibrated against a boat the author owns.

Boatific is operated by Nugentive Labs Inc. (Alberta, Canada), directed by Trevor Bosman. The verification framework on this page was calibrated against the boat the author owns — a Corbin 39, surveyed and refit firsthand. That boat is Boatific's hand-built fixture page, chosen because the strongest test of "did the pipeline produce something accurate" is a boat its author knows cold.

Every other model on the site was researched by the same pipeline, scored by the same formula, and reviewed against the same editorial constitution described below. The fixture exists so that pipeline output can be held against a known-correct reference before it ships.

Research, audit, confirm.

What we trust, and how much.

Sources are restricted to a published registry. Agents cannot cite outside it. Each domain belongs to one tier, and the tier sets a weight in the confidence formula below.

What counts as proof.

Tier weights describe the domain. A separate hierarchy applies to the kind of statement a source contains, and weights how owner-contributed confirmations move a score after publish.

The math, in public.

Confidence is arithmetic, published, and reproducible. No score on the site is ever assigned by hand.

agreement     = agentsConfirming / 3                  → 0.33 / 0.67 / 1.0
sourceScore   = max tier weight among verified cites  → 1.0 / 0.7 / 0.4
corroboration = min(distinctSources, 8) / 8           → breadth, capped at 8

confidence    = round(100 × (0.40·agreement
                       + 0.35·sourceScore
                       + 0.25·corroboration))

Confidence is alive.

A score is not a one-time grade. After publish, every approved owner or surveyor submission moves the number by a fixed amount:

• Each approved supporting submission adds +3 to the claim's confidence, capped at +15 from any single community.
• Each approved contradicting submission subtracts 5 and re-opens the claim for audit — the page revises or splits the claim rather than averaging away the disagreement.
• Evidence counts on the page ("14 owner reports · 3 surveyor reports") are computed from the underlying claim record. They are not copy.

Worked example — illustrative only.

A hypothetical claim about chainplate leaks. Two of three agents independently surface it from the dossier. The highest-tier verified citation is a published surveyor article (Tier 1). Four distinct sources confirm it.

agreement     = 2 / 3              = 0.67
sourceScore   = 1.0                = 1.00
corroboration = 4 / 8              = 0.50

confidence    = round(100 × (0.40·0.67 + 0.35·1.00 + 0.25·0.50))
              = round(100 × (0.268 + 0.350 + 0.125))
              = round(74.3)        = 74

→ REPORTED. A second corroborating surveyor article and a third agreeing agent would push the same claim into VERIFIED territory. The numbers above are illustrative; the formula is the same one that produces every score on the site.

Six rules, non-negotiable.

Violations of these rules are how Boatific stops being useful. They apply to every page, every claim, every submission.

1. Evidence over anecdote. A submission adjusts confidence; it does not rewrite a page by itself.
2. Surveyor findings outweigh owner reports; owner reports outweigh hearsay. "A guy at the marina said…" is rejected, or kept UNVERIFIED with a visible call to confirm.
3. Contradictions are surfaced, not hidden. When owners genuinely disagree, the claim says so — both positions, both bodies of evidence, side by side.
4. No brand vendettas. Submissions that are pure sentiment ("worst boat ever") generate no claim. Satisfaction is captured only through the structured would-buy-again signal.
5. Identity stays private. Contributor contact information is never published. Role and hull number may appear, with permission, as "Owner, hull #142."
6. Every page keeps a visible "Report an error" path. Both the legal safety valve and a trust signal. If something is wrong, we want to hear it.

What that looks like in practice.

The clearest test of the constitution is what the page refuses to do. A few examples:

• REJECTED "These boats are garbage, I'd never buy one again." → No claim is created. Sentiment without a specific, sourced observation has no entry point. The would-buy-again question captures owner satisfaction in a structured way; free text does not.
• REJECTED "My broker told me the early hulls had bad chainplates." → Hearsay. Cannot become evidence. It may prompt research into chainplate documentation; it does not, by itself, support a claim.
• SURFACED When evidence genuinely conflicts, the claim records both sides. Example: "Standard rig configuration is contested. Multiple owners of pre-1985 hulls report a masthead rig from new; a 1985 builder brochure describes a fractional option that several later-hull owners also confirm. Boatific lists both configurations with separate evidence, rather than collapsing them into one 'standard.'" That is what rule 3 looks like.