Scope
Public Ledger analyzes public records and user-provided documents to generate review leads. Outputs are not conclusions of wrongdoing and are not legal advice.
Methodology
Reward useful work without rewarding noise.
Public Ledger exists to pay people for helping uncover and stop inappropriate public spending. The methodology keeps that incentive honest: source visibility, human review, right to respond, and clear boundaries around claims and rewards.
What a review lead means
A review lead is a candidate issue that may merit closer follow-up. It is not a public accusation or a misconduct score.
Source-backed opportunities only
Public Ledger should not publish invented opportunities, synthetic examples, unsupported savings claims, or unsupported reward claims. A public opportunity should appear only when it is backed by sourced and citable data.
How records are handled
Records are gathered, organized, and cross-referenced so reviewers can trace each public point back to source material.
Human review
Automated analysis helps surface patterns, but people decide what should be reviewed, dismissed, escalated, or clarified.
Right to respond
Government entities should be able to provide context, corrections, or additional records when public review needs more information.
Records-request boundaries
Draft request packages are prepared for human review before filing. Public Ledger does not describe every draft as filed or final.
Economic incentives
The platform is designed to reward verified useful work with $FOIA eligibility, let supporters pledge resources behind source-backed work, and — when verified platform payments exist — connect those receipts to the token economy. Profit, payout, and token appreciation are never guaranteed.
AI governance
AI changes are versioned, evaluated, approval-gated, and reversible so the system can improve without becoming opaque.
Limitations
Public records can be incomplete, OCR and transcription can be imperfect, and missing context can affect review outputs.
Secure reporting boundary
A secure whistleblower intake is planned and will not launch until identity, counsel, and confidentiality safeguards are independently reviewed. A normal public concern is not confidential or privileged.
Public labels used on the site
Labels explain workflow status and review posture. They do not imply a legal conclusion.
Review lead
A candidate issue that may merit closer review.
Reviewed
A person has examined the lead and its supporting record trail.
Dismissed
The lead did not justify further action based on the available record.
Escalated
The lead appears to warrant deeper follow-up or a documented next step.
Source-backed opportunity
A public opportunity supported by traceable records and citable sources rather than a synthetic or invented example.
Reward-eligible work
Contribution accepted under published reward rules because it is useful, sourced, reviewed, and tied to a real lead or workspace.
Take the next step
Trust rules make rewards credible.
If the methodology makes sense, sign in, share a public concern, or contribute source-backed work toward reward eligibility.