Reporting standards, external review, and benchmark cases
Use this page to decide whether a case is even ready to report, understand what an external review can responsibly infer, and compare real-world situations against structured benchmark examples.
Use it for
Reporting decisions, review discipline, and benchmark comparison.
What it avoids
Public accusation theater, crowd verdicts, and false certainty.
What it produces
Clearer standards, bounded conclusions, and reusable case structure.
Approach
Evidence-based external review
Last reviewed
March 25, 2026
Start from your role
The standards stay the same, but the first useful question changes depending on who is arriving here.
- Use the reporting readiness check before submitting anything.
- Keep your report narrow: specific games, specific observations, no speculation.
- Assume that some critical platform-only evidence is unavailable to you.
Reporting readiness check
Use this before you submit a report. It is designed to slow weak cases down and make stronger cases more disciplined.
Current band
Insufficient basis
The current case is not ready for a responsible report. The evidence is too thin or too vague.
Next step: Collect a clearer pattern or do not report yet.
Checklist score
0 / 7
What is still missing
- I am looking at multiple games or a broader pattern, not one surprising result.
- I can point to specific games, moments, or timestamps instead of describing a vague feeling.
- The concern is based on observable patterns such as timing anomalies or repeated engine-like alignment.
- I am not basing this only on rating gain, title gap, or one strong tactical performance.
- I intend to use an official reporting channel rather than public accusation or social pressure.
- I can describe the concern in a short, factual, proportionate summary.
- I understand that external review and public PGNs do not include internal platform telemetry.
Suggested report framing
I am not ready to submit a report yet because the current concern is still too thin or too vague to summarize responsibly.
Transparent review approach
External review is most useful when it is explicit about evidence, uncertainty, and what it cannot know.
Game-level signals
Move quality, complexity handling, and timing patterns across a meaningful sample.
Match or account pattern
Whether suspicious play repeats across events, time controls, openings, or rating bands.
Behavioral context
Known device setup, browser extensions, transmission conditions, or platform process notes when available.
Unavailable platform-only data
Internal telemetry, device fingerprints, and proprietary anti-abuse signals that external reviewers usually cannot see.
Insufficient basis
The available evidence does not support a fair-play conclusion.
Limited concern
Some indicators warrant caution, but the case is weak or incomplete.
Material concern
Multiple indicators align and justify deeper review or formal escalation.
High concern
The evidence is strong and coherent, though still bounded by what an external reviewer can actually observe.
Limits of external review
This is the trust-preserving part. The methodology should be clear about what it cannot settle.
External review usually cannot see internal platform telemetry, device fingerprinting, anti-abuse heuristics, or account-link data.
Public PGNs can suggest concern patterns, but they do not reliably prove innocence or guilt by themselves.
One brilliant result, one upset, or one high-accuracy game is rarely enough to support a cheating claim.
Any external conclusion should stay narrower than what a platform with internal evidence may be able to determine.
Benchmark walkthroughs
These examples are meant to train judgment. Compare the shape of the case, not just the headline impression.
Available evidence
- One public game with unusually strong tactical accuracy.
- A result that feels surprising relative to rating gap.
Unavailable evidence
- Broader game sample showing whether the pattern repeats.
- Any platform-only timing or device context beyond the visible game record.
Alternative explanations considered
- A well-prepared opening line or a genuinely sharp tactical day.
- Noise from a tiny sample rather than a real pattern.
Confidence band
Insufficient basisInsufficient basis
Why it lands there
One striking result can justify curiosity, but not a cheating conclusion. The sample is too small and too easy to overread.
What would change the conclusion
The case would strengthen only if the same signals repeated across multiple games or events.
Claim and scope
State exactly what is being assessed: one game, a match, a tournament stretch, or a broader account pattern.
Available data
List the evidence that was available and explicitly note what an external reviewer could not see.
Observed indicators
Group the actual observations by category such as move quality, timing, repetition, or environment context.
Alternative explanations
Show what innocent explanations were considered and why they were or were not persuasive.
Conclusion and confidence
Keep the final conclusion narrow and pair it with a confidence band rather than a dramatic binary label.
- Remove names, usernames, event identifiers, and other traceable details.
- Publish only the evidence needed to illustrate the reasoning, not a dossier of every available fact.
- Frame the case as a methodology example, not a public accusation archive.