Epstein Network: Levels of Involvement Scale, 0 to 5
The Epstein Network Levels of Involvement Scale provides a consistent way to describe how closely a person was connected to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, their operations, or the institutions that supported them.
The scale measures documented connection and function. It does not determine guilt.
A person’s level must be supported by cited evidence. The level must remain separate from allegations, charges, civil claims, settlements, acquittals, findings, and convictions. A high involvement level can reflect extensive professional or operational activity without proving criminal knowledge. A low level does not excuse misconduct established by other evidence.
Snapshot
| Level | Classification | Core meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Level 0 | No verified connection | The person appears only in rumor, misinformation, or mistaken identity |
| Level 1 | Incidental contact | Isolated social, professional, or public contact with no verified operational role |
| Level 2 | Repeated association | Ongoing social, professional, financial, academic, or institutional relationship |
| Level 3 | Direct system contact | Documented interaction with Epstein’s network, properties, travel, staff, victims, recruitment environment, or operational activities |
| Level 4 | Operational role | Managed, funded, organized, protected, administered, or coordinated a material part of Epstein’s activities |
| Level 5 | Core system operator | Directed, recruited, groomed, controlled, abused, concealed, or operated a central part of the system |
Purpose
This guide creates a uniform standard for EpsteinWiki person pages, network maps, timelines, investigation reports, and evidence analysis.
The scale is designed to prevent two opposite errors.
The first is guilt by association, where a photograph, contact book entry, or single meeting is treated as proof of criminal involvement.
The second is minimization, where years of financial, legal, administrative, recruitment, or logistical work are described as a casual association.
The scale requires contributors to identify the documented nature, duration, frequency, access, and function of each relationship.
Core Question
The central question is:
What is the highest level of involvement directly supported by reliable evidence?
The question is not:
How suspicious does this person seem?
The number of search results, public notoriety, political affiliation, wealth, or popularity of an accusation must not determine the level.
The Scale Measures Connection, Not Guilt
The scale measures documented involvement in the network.
It does not determine:
- Criminal guilt.
- Civil liability.
- Knowledge of Epstein’s abuse.
- Intent to facilitate abuse.
- Whether allegations are true.
- Whether a person should have been charged.
- Whether a person qualifies legally as a coconspirator.
- Whether a relationship was socially or morally acceptable.
Legal and claim status must be recorded separately.
A person may be classified as Level 4 because authenticated records show that the person managed Epstein’s finances or business operations. That does not permit EpsteinWiki to state that the person knowingly facilitated trafficking unless the evidence separately supports that conclusion.
Level 0: No Verified Connection
Definition
Level 0 applies when no reliable evidence connects the person to Epstein, Maxwell, their properties, their organizations, or their network.
The person may appear in:
- Internet rumors.
- Fabricated lists.
- Mistaken identity claims.
- Unauthenticated screenshots.
- AI generated name lists.
- Manipulated photographs.
- Unsupported social media posts.
- Documents referring to a different person with the same or similar name.
- Articles that provide no original source.
- Search results created by OCR errors.
Evidence Threshold
Level 0 means the available material does not establish a verified connection.
A contributor should attempt to determine whether the claim resulted from:
- A spelling variation.
- A mistaken identity.
- A false quotation.
- A manipulated image.
- A different person sharing the same name.
- An unsupported viral list.
- An OCR error.
- Circular reporting.
Publication Rule
Level 0 names should normally be filtered out rather than given person pages.
An exception may be made when a false connection has become sufficiently widespread that a correction is necessary. The article must then focus on the misinformation and explain why the claimed connection is unsupported.
Required Language
EpsteinWiki located no verified evidence connecting this person to Jeffrey Epstein or his network. The available claim appears to originate from [identified source or type of misinformation].
Do not write that a Level 0 person has been “cleared” unless an authority actually conducted and completed an applicable investigation.
Level 1: Incidental Contact
Definition
Level 1 applies when reliable evidence establishes isolated or limited contact but no ongoing relationship or operational role.
Examples include:
- Attendance at the same public event.
- Appearance in a group photograph.
- One documented introduction.
- One brief communication.
- A single contact book entry without evidence of communication.
- A name included in a large invitation list.
- An isolated professional encounter.
- A passing reference in correspondence.
- Attendance at a public lecture, dinner, conference, or fundraiser.
- A one time meeting with no verified follow up.
Evidence Threshold
Level 1 requires at least one authenticated or reliably sourced connection.
The source should establish the contact itself, not merely repeat a rumor.
What Level 1 Does Not Establish
Level 1 does not establish:
- Friendship.
- Repeated communication.
- Travel with Epstein.
- Knowledge of abuse.
- Access to survivors.
- Financial involvement.
- Employment.
- Facilitation.
- Criminal participation.
- Coconspirator status.
Illustrative EFTA Example
An isolated reference such as the mention of “DJT” in EFTA02583955 would, by itself, support no more than Level 1 for that specific document appearance.
The record does not, by itself, establish that Donald J. Trump sent the email, received the email, knew about the email, or took any action described by the sender. A complete person rating would require review of all other evidence and must not be based on this one record.
Required Language
Available evidence documents limited or incidental contact. EpsteinWiki has not identified a verified operational role from the cited material.
Level 2: Repeated Association
Definition
Level 2 applies when evidence establishes an ongoing or repeated relationship but does not establish direct participation in Epstein’s operational system.
The relationship may be:
- Social.
- Professional.
- Financial.
- Academic.
- Political.
- Philanthropic.
- Medical.
- Legal.
- Business related.
- Institutional.
Common Level 2 Indicators
Level 2 may be supported by:
- Multiple communications over time.
- Repeated meetings.
- Documented friendship.
- Multiple social appearances.
- Recurring professional services.
- Repeated invitations.
- Ongoing donations or institutional contact.
- Multiple calendar entries.
- Repeated introductions.
- A sustained business relationship that does not yet demonstrate operational management.
Evidence Threshold
Level 2 ordinarily requires more than one independent record or one record that clearly establishes a continuing relationship.
Frequency alone is not enough. Contributors must examine the nature and duration of the contact.
What Level 2 Does Not Establish
Repeated association does not automatically establish:
- Knowledge of abuse.
- Access to survivors.
- Participation in recruitment.
- Operational control.
- Intentional concealment.
- Financial facilitation of criminal conduct.
- Criminal liability.
Leon Black as an Illustrative Caution
Leon Black appeared in early versions of this scale as an example of a repeated professional relationship. That illustration must not be treated as a permanent or complete rating.
Black’s full involvement level must be based on the complete current record, including the duration and value of his financial relationship with Epstein, documented payments, communications, meetings, investigations, litigation, findings, denials, and any later evidence.
This demonstrates an important rule: an early Level 2 classification is a starting point, not a ceiling.
Required Language
Records document a repeated [social, professional, financial, or institutional] relationship. The cited evidence does not, by itself, establish knowledge of or participation in Epstein’s abuse.
Level 3: Direct Interaction With the System
Definition
Level 3 applies when evidence places a person in direct contact with a material part of Epstein’s network or operating environment.
This may include documented interaction with:
- Epstein’s residences.
- Epstein’s aircraft.
- Household staff.
- Recruiters.
- Survivors or alleged victims.
- Payments connected to the network.
- Private travel arrangements.
- Repeated post conviction contact.
- Security or surveillance systems.
- Recruitment environments.
- Operational introductions.
- Private events organized through Epstein’s staff.
Common Level 3 Indicators
Level 3 may involve:
- Repeated travel on Epstein controlled aircraft.
- Visits to private properties documented by several sources.
- Being named in survivor or witness accounts involving the network.
- Direct communications about young women, massages, recruitment, travel, payments, or private arrangements.
- Receiving services through Epstein’s staff or properties.
- Participation in activities requiring coordination by Epstein employees.
- Financial transactions connected to people or entities inside the network.
- Direct access to spaces where the system operated.
A Name in Testimony Is Not Automatic Proof
A person named in survivor testimony may qualify for Level 3 because the testimony documents a direct allegation or claimed interaction with the system.
The level records the nature of the alleged connection. It does not declare the allegation proven.
The article must state whether the account was:
- Sworn or unsworn.
- Firsthand or derivative.
- Corroborated or uncorroborated.
- Contested or uncontested.
- Adjudicated or never decided.
Flight Logs and Level 3
A single flight entry does not automatically create Level 3 status.
Contributors must examine:
- Number of documented flights.
- Dates and destinations.
- Whether the passenger was reliably identified.
- Whether the entry records completed travel.
- Whether other evidence corroborates the trip.
- Whether the travel involved Epstein’s private properties or staff.
- Whether the record establishes direct system access rather than incidental transport.
What Level 3 Does Not Establish
Level 3 does not automatically establish:
- An operational role.
- Knowledge of trafficking.
- Participation in abuse.
- Direction of employees.
- Recruitment.
- Criminal intent.
- Coconspirator status.
Required Language
Evidence documents direct interaction with Epstein’s operating environment. The current record establishes [specific interaction] but does not independently establish [unsupported conclusion].
Level 4: Operational Role
Definition
Level 4 applies when reliable evidence establishes that a person managed, funded, organized, administered, protected, concealed, or coordinated a material part of Epstein’s activities.
A Level 4 role can involve lawful professional work, alleged enabling conduct, or adjudicated misconduct. Those legal and claim distinctions must be stated separately.
Common Level 4 Functions
Level 4 may include:
- Managing finances or bank relationships.
- Creating or administering corporate entities.
- Managing properties.
- Coordinating travel.
- Managing staff.
- Arranging payments.
- Providing recurring legal or accounting services.
- Managing immigration or employment documentation.
- Controlling records.
- Administering trusts or estate structures.
- Coordinating security or surveillance.
- Managing communications or schedules.
- Responding to law enforcement or litigation.
- Protecting Epstein’s public reputation.
- Administering settlements or confidentiality agreements.
Evidence Threshold
Level 4 requires evidence of function, not merely proximity.
Useful evidence includes:
- Employment records.
- Corporate filings.
- Financial records.
- Authenticated correspondence.
- Contracts.
- Sworn testimony.
- Property records.
- Court filings.
- Employee instructions.
- Records showing authority over staff, money, travel, property, or documents.
Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn as Operational Examples
Darren Indyke served as Epstein’s attorney, and Richard Kahn served as his accountant. Both later became coexecutors of Epstein’s estate.
Those documented professional, financial, and administrative functions illustrate the type of evidence relevant to Level 4.
The United States Virgin Islands Attorney General’s amended complaint made additional allegations concerning their involvement in Epstein’s operations. Those allegations must remain labeled as allegations.
The 2022 settlement announced by the Virgin Islands Attorney General resolved claims against Epstein’s estate, Indyke, Kahn, and related entities. A settlement must not be described as a criminal conviction or automatic admission of every allegation.
Professional Services Are Not Automatically Neutral
A lawyer, accountant, banker, physician, pilot, publicist, executive assistant, or property manager may provide legitimate professional services.
However, the title “professional” does not end the inquiry.
Contributors should examine:
- Duration of service.
- Scope of authority.
- Access to information.
- Red flags.
- Conduct after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.
- Payments and financial benefit.
- Participation in disputed transactions.
- Actions taken to conceal or disclose information.
- Instructions given to staff.
- Responses to warnings or complaints.
What Level 4 Does Not Automatically Establish
Level 4 does not automatically establish:
- Criminal knowledge.
- Criminal intent.
- Participation in sexual abuse.
- Legal coconspirator status.
- Civil liability.
- A duty to know every aspect of Epstein’s conduct.
Those conclusions require separate evidence.
Required Language
Records establish that the person performed a material operational function involving [finances, property, travel, staffing, legal affairs, or another documented area]. The legal significance of that role is separately classified as [alleged, contested, settled, charged, adjudicated, or not adjudicated].
Level 5: Core System Operator
Definition
Level 5 applies when reliable evidence establishes that a person directed, recruited, groomed, controlled, abused, concealed, or operated a central part of Epstein’s system.
This is the highest involvement level.
Common Level 5 Indicators
Level 5 may involve:
- Direct recruitment of victims.
- Grooming or normalization of abuse.
- Direction of recruiters or employees.
- Participation in sexual abuse.
- Control over victim travel or payments.
- Direction of operational logistics.
- Concealment of the system’s central activities.
- Decision making authority over multiple parts of the network.
- Long term coordination with Epstein.
- Adjudicated participation in a criminal scheme.
Evidence Threshold
Level 5 requires strong evidence of central function.
A single social connection, payment, trip, allegation, or document appearance is not sufficient.
The classification should ordinarily rely on:
- A conviction or accepted guilty plea.
- Judicial findings.
- Multiple corroborated firsthand accounts.
- Authenticated communications demonstrating direction or control.
- Operational records supported by independent evidence.
- A combination of testimony, documents, financial records, and demonstrated authority.
Ghislaine Maxwell as the Primary Level 5 Example
Ghislaine Maxwell is the clearest Level 5 example.
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York reported that Maxwell was convicted following a jury trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Her convictions included conspiracy offenses, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor.
The prosecution’s evidence established that Maxwell helped recruit and groom minor victims, facilitated abuse, and participated in the system over an extended period.
Her Level 5 classification is therefore supported by adjudicated criminal conduct and evidence of a central operating role.
Required Language
Adjudicated evidence establishes that the person performed a central role in directing, recruiting, grooming, controlling, abusing, concealing, or operating the Epstein system.
When the conduct has not been adjudicated, write:
Multiple sources allege or support a central operating role. The conduct has not been adjudicated, and the Level 5 classification measures the documented nature of the alleged involvement rather than criminal guilt.
Level Comparison Matrix
| Factor | Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verified connection | None | Limited | Repeated | Direct | Operational | Central |
| Contact frequency | None | Isolated | Recurring | Recurring or materially direct | Sustained | Sustained |
| Access to system | None | None shown | Limited | Direct | Significant | Central |
| Operational function | None | None | None established | Possible or limited | Documented | Directed or controlled |
| Access to survivors | None | None shown | Not established | Alleged or documented contact | Possible through role | Central to established conduct |
| Management authority | None | None | None | Limited or unclear | Material | Directing or controlling |
| Criminal guilt | Not applicable | Not established | Not established | Not established by level | Not established by level | Must still be separately stated |
| Publication status | Usually excluded | Publish with context | Publish | Publish with careful attribution | Second review | Mandatory second review |
Do Not Average the Evidence
The level should reflect the highest involvement reliably established by the complete evidence.
Do not assign Level 3 merely because a person has several Level 1 references.
Ten incidental photographs remain incidental evidence unless they establish a recurring relationship.
Likewise, one authenticated document showing direct operational authority may carry more weight than hundreds of social references.
Do Not Score by File Count
The number of files mentioning a person can be misleading because of:
- Duplicate records.
- Repeated email chains.
- News clippings stored in investigative files.
- OCR variations.
- Quoted pleadings.
- Copies of exhibits.
- Automated entity extraction.
- A person’s name appearing in disclaimers, indexes, or forwarding chains.
Count distinct evidence events, not search hits.
Required Companion Labels
Every involvement rating must include additional labels.
Confidence Level
Use:
- High confidence.
- Moderate confidence.
- Low confidence.
- Under review.
Claim Status
Use:
- Verified.
- Corroborated.
- Supported.
- Alleged.
- Contested.
- Unresolved.
- Unverified.
- Disproved.
Legal Status
Use:
- No known proceeding.
- Civilly alleged.
- Civil defendant.
- Settled without admission.
- Criminally charged.
- Charges dismissed.
- Acquitted.
- Convicted.
- Conviction under appeal.
- Pardoned or sentence commuted.
Evidence Basis
Identify the primary evidence supporting the level:
- Court finding.
- Sworn testimony.
- Survivor account.
- Government record.
- Financial record.
- Communication record.
- Travel record.
- Employment record.
- Corporate record.
- Photograph or recording.
- Corroborated reporting.
Example Classification Line
Involvement Level: Level 4, Operational Role
Confidence: High
Claim Status: Documented professional and administrative role; separate conduct allegations contested
Legal Status: Civil claims settled without an admission of wrongdoing
Evidence Basis: Corporate, financial, court, employment, and estate records
Special Rules for Survivors and Recruited Minors
The scale must not be used to portray survivors as operators merely because Epstein or Maxwell pressured, groomed, paid, or manipulated them into recruiting other girls.
A survivor who participated in recruitment while being exploited may have been acting under grooming, coercion, financial dependence, threats, normalization, or age based vulnerability.
Contributors must:
- Prioritize the person’s survivor status.
- Consider age and coercion.
- Avoid labels such as recruiter, enabler, or coconspirator without careful evidence and editorial review.
- Distinguish exploitation from decision making authority.
- Avoid assigning Level 4 or Level 5 based only on conduct performed while the person was being victimized.
- Require a survivor centered second review.
- Protect identities when legally or ethically required.
The scale measures power and function within the system. It must never erase the coercive conditions under which survivors were exploited.
Classifying Employees and Household Staff
Employment alone does not determine the level.
A household employee with no documented awareness or operational authority may fall within Level 2.
An employee who directly coordinated travel, payments, recruitment appointments, or access to victims may fall within Level 3 or Level 4.
Contributors should examine:
- Job duties.
- Duration of employment.
- Access to properties.
- Authority over others.
- Contact with survivors.
- Knowledge indicators.
- Conduct after complaints or Epstein’s conviction.
- Participation in payments or scheduling.
- Testimony and denials.
- Whether the person had meaningful power to act.
Classifying Lawyers, Accountants, Bankers, and Advisors
Professional status does not automatically reduce or increase a person’s level.
Evaluate:
- Scope of work.
- Duration of the relationship.
- Compensation.
- Access to financial or personal information.
- Control over entities or accounts.
- Actions taken after Epstein’s conviction.
- Responses to compliance warnings.
- Participation in settlements, payments, trusts, or confidentiality arrangements.
- Evidence of concealment.
- Evidence of knowledge.
A person can be Level 4 because of operational authority while the claim that the person knowingly facilitated abuse remains unverified or contested.
Classifying Public Figures
Public figures must be classified by evidence, not fame.
A politician, celebrity, academic, royal, billionaire, or institutional leader does not receive a higher level because the name attracts attention.
The same standards apply:
- One photograph may support Level 1.
- Recurring social contact may support Level 2.
- Direct interaction with Epstein’s operating environment may support Level 3.
- Management or facilitation may support Level 4.
- Central direction, recruitment, grooming, abuse, or concealment may support Level 5.
Follow the Ethical Rules for Naming Public Figures.
Alleged Coconspirators and the Scale
“Coconspirator” is a legal and evidentiary term. It must not be assigned merely because a person receives Level 4 or Level 5.
Federal conspiracy generally requires an agreement to commit an offense and, under statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, an act to advance the object of that agreement.
EpsteinWiki should distinguish:
- Named as a coconspirator in a government record.
- Alleged to be a coconspirator in a civil complaint.
- Charged with conspiracy.
- Convicted of conspiracy.
- Described editorially as an alleged facilitator based on documented conduct.
- Assigned a high involvement level because of operational evidence.
These are not interchangeable.
Follow the Identifying Co Conspirators Guide before applying accusatory terminology.
Step by Step Classification Workflow
Step 1: Confirm Identity
Verify the person’s full name, aliases, occupation, location, and relevant dates. Exclude mistaken identity and namesakes.
Step 2: Collect Every Evidence Appearance
Create a source list containing EFTA identifiers, court records, testimony, travel records, financial records, communications, photographs, property records, and reliable reporting.
Use Epstein Data to locate original records whenever available.
Step 3: Remove Duplicates
Group duplicate files, repeated email chains, quoted pleadings, and reproduced exhibits. Count distinct events rather than file mentions.
Step 4: Build a Chronology
Record the earliest and latest verified contact. Identify changes before and after Epstein’s 2008 conviction and 2019 arrest.
Step 5: Identify the Relationship Type
Classify the connection as social, professional, financial, political, academic, legal, household, travel related, institutional, sexual, or operational.
Step 6: Identify the Function
Determine what the person actually did.
Use concrete verbs such as:
- Attended.
- Met.
- Communicated.
- Traveled.
- Paid.
- Received.
- Scheduled.
- Employed.
- Managed.
- Directed.
- Recruited.
- Groomed.
- Concealed.
- Reported.
- Warned.
Step 7: Evaluate Access and Authority
Determine whether the person had access to Epstein, survivors, staff, properties, finances, records, aircraft, institutions, or decision making.
Step 8: Separate Allegations From Findings
Label every complaint, accusation, charge, settlement, verdict, and judgment according to its actual legal status.
Step 9: Search for Corroboration and Contrary Evidence
Look for independent sources, denials, amended filings, corrected records, alibi evidence, mistaken identities, and later findings.
Step 10: Assign the Lowest Fully Supported Level
When evidence supports two possible levels, use the lower level until the higher level is adequately established.
Do not use suspicion to fill evidentiary gaps.
Step 11: Add Companion Labels
Record confidence, claim status, legal status, and evidence basis.
Step 12: Obtain Editorial Review
Level 3 classifications involving abuse allegations require a second editor.
Every Level 4 or Level 5 classification requires a second editor before publication.
When a Level Should Change
A level should be reviewed when:
- New EFTA records are released.
- New testimony becomes public.
- A court issues a ruling.
- A person is charged, acquitted, or convicted.
- A settlement is entered.
- A source is authenticated or discredited.
- A mistaken identity is corrected.
- Previously separate records are identified as duplicates.
- New evidence establishes operational authority.
- Evidence previously believed to be independent is traced to one source.
Changes must follow the Corrections Policy.
Required Person Page Entry
Every EpsteinWiki person article should include:
EpsteinWiki Involvement Level: Level [0 to 5], [classification]
Confidence: [high, moderate, low, or under review]
Evidence Basis: [primary evidence categories]
Claim Status: [verified, corroborated, alleged, contested, unresolved, or another approved label]
Legal Status: [accurate legal classification]
Reason: [two or three sentences explaining the documented conduct supporting the level]
Questions Contributors Must Answer
- Has the person’s identity been verified?
- Is the connection based on original evidence or repeated reporting?
- What is the earliest verified contact?
- What is the latest verified contact?
- Was the contact isolated or repeated?
- Did the relationship continue after Epstein’s 2008 conviction?
- Was the relationship social, professional, financial, political, academic, legal, or operational?
- Did the person travel on Epstein controlled aircraft?
- Did the person visit Epstein controlled properties?
- Did the person communicate directly with Epstein or Maxwell?
- Did the person interact with staff, recruiters, survivors, or alleged victims?
- Did the person manage money, entities, property, travel, staffing, records, or legal affairs?
- Did the person possess authority over other participants?
- Is there evidence of recruitment, grooming, control, abuse, or concealment?
- Is the conduct established, alleged, contested, or adjudicated?
- Have denials and contrary evidence been included?
- Are duplicate records inflating the apparent connection?
- Is the level based on conduct or merely the number of name appearances?
- Does the evidence show association or an operational function?
- Does the language imply criminal guilt that has not been established?
- Has survivor testimony been handled with appropriate care?
- Is the person a survivor whose conduct occurred under grooming or coercion?
- Has the lowest fully supported level been selected?
- Are confidence, claim status, and legal status listed separately?
- Can readers locate every material source?
- Are EFTA numbers linked through Epstein Data?
- Does the rating require a second editorial review?
- Are unresolved questions clearly identified?
- Could new evidence reasonably change the level?
- Is the explanation neutral, precise, and limited to what the evidence establishes?
Related EpsteinWiki Guides
- Epstein Files Evidence Framework
- Identifying Co Conspirators
- Handling Contradictory Evidence
- Content Classification Guide
- Editorial Standards
- Ethical Rules for Naming Public Figures
- Evidence Handling 101
- Chain of Custody Protocol
- How to Read Epstein Documents Without Making Things Up
- Research Methodology
- Corrections Policy
Sources
- Department of Justice Epstein Library
- Department of Justice, United States v. Maxwell Court Records
- United States Attorney’s Office, Ghislaine Maxwell Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison
- United States Virgin Islands Attorney General, Amended Epstein Estate Complaint
- United States Virgin Islands Attorney General, Epstein Estate Settlement
- 18 U.S.C. § 371, Conspiracy to Commit Offense or Defraud the United States
- EFTA02583955 through Epstein Data
Editorial Note
The Levels of Involvement Scale is an EpsteinWiki research classification system. It is not a legal verdict, risk assessment, psychological judgment, or declaration of guilt.
The level must describe the person’s documented connection and function. Allegations, civil claims, charges, findings, settlements, acquittals, and convictions must always be identified separately.
The scale should make the archive more precise. It must never be used to turn proximity into guilt, minimize operational conduct, or erase the coercion experienced by survivors.
Last reviewed: September 6, 2026