Available-Record
Grade 1.0.
THE CONDUCT FILE grades the evidence actually reviewed against fixed checks. The number is an editorial assessment of that record, not an estimate of overall department quality, officer behavior, resident trust or future misconduct.
Current department model: TCF Available-Record Grade 1.0. It replaces the earlier department methods for newly generated reports. Officer and incident files retain their own stated methods.
A grade with limited evidence
One sufficiently supported check can produce a grade. There is no minimum overall coverage, category coverage or incident count for this limited claim. If no check can be assessed, the result is NR — no assessable evidence. Missing, inaccessible or unresolved evidence earns neither credit nor a penalty.
Score = 100 × earned weight ÷ assessed weight. Each of 20 checks weighs 5. A check’s 0–4 rating earns 5 × rating ÷ 4. Average distinct eligible event observations within an outcome check; assess one current snapshot for a publication check. A zero remains assessed. Unknown checks stay in the fixed 100-point coverage denominator.
Rubric coverage = assessed weight ÷ 100. It measures which checks were assessed, not the percentage of incidents or personnel reviewed. With partial evidence the assessed checks determine the effective category mix. Do not average five category scores equally.
The unrounded score sets A at 90+, B at 80+, C at 70+, D at 60+, and F below 60. Show one decimal, adding precision at a boundary so rounding never promotes a grade.
Read the scope beside the letter
PROVISIONAL — LIMITED RECORD appears whenever a check remains Unknown. If only publication/access checks are assessed, the grade carries PUBLIC INFORMATION / PROCESS ONLY — CONDUCT NOT ASSESSED. A publication assessment establishes what was available in the identified readable set; it does not establish successful operational performance or absence elsewhere on the web.
Every report identifies assessed and unassessed categories, observation counts, method and source cutoff. Substantiated grave findings remain prominently attributed beside the grade, regardless of the average. There are no hidden score caps.
The same 20 checks for every department
| Category | Fixed weight | Checks |
|---|---|---|
| Conduct, force and custody | 35% | 7 |
| Accountability | 25% | 5 |
| Transparency | 20% | 4 |
| Training and supervision | 10% | 2 |
| Service and communication | 10% | 2 |
The weights, checks and anchors are TCF editorial choices, not a validated statistical model. Open a check for its fixed benchmark and rating bands. Publication checks earn one unit for each documented component present in an identified readable set; a crawler error or failed search is not proof that a component is absent.
C1 · Stops and searches — 5 weight points
A documented stop or search complies with its applicable authority and scope.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A documented stop or search complies with its applicable authority and scope. Hypothetical example: The complete reviewed stop/search meets its sourced authority and scope. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Authority/scope are met; a minor required receipt detail is omitted. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Distinct parts of the reviewed search comply and materially fail. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes unsupported stop/search or material scope violation; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: A reviewed search substantially exceeds the established lawful scope. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving unsupported stop/search or material scope violation. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: A substantiated deliberate warrantless search without a lawful exception. |
C2 · Arrests and detention — 5 weight points
A documented arrest or detention has the required basis, duration and process.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A documented arrest or detention has the required basis, duration and process. Hypothetical example: The reviewed detention meets its identified basis, duration and process duties. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Authority and duration are met with a minor nonmaterial processing delay. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Initial custody is justified but a material later process duty is unmet. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes unlawful or unjustified detention; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: A documented detention continues seriously beyond its established authority. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving unlawful or unjustified detention. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: A substantiated grave detention with no lawful basis. |
C3 · Force justification and proportionality — 5 weight points
A documented use of force meets the applicable necessity and proportionality benchmark.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A documented use of force meets the applicable necessity and proportionality benchmark. Hypothetical example: The complete reviewed force episode affirmatively meets the applicable standard. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: The force benchmark is met with a documented minor nonmaterial shortcoming. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Some force is justified but a distinct material use is not. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes unjustified or disproportionate force; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: The reviewed force is seriously disproportionate to the established threat. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving unjustified or disproportionate force. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: A substantiated grave use of unjustified force. |
C4 · Restraint and de-escalation conduct — 5 weight points
A documented encounter follows applicable restraint, intervention and de-escalation requirements in its actual circumstances.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A documented encounter follows applicable restraint, intervention and de-escalation requirements in its actual circumstances. Hypothetical example: The reviewed episode meets all applicable restraint/intervention requirements. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Required conduct is largely met with one minor documented omission. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Some required restraint/intervention steps occur but material steps fail. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes avoidable escalation or prohibited restraint; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: A documented serious restraint or de-escalation requirement is largely unmet. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving avoidable escalation or prohibited restraint. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: A substantiated grave prohibited restraint or deliberate failure to intervene. |
C5 · Custody and medical care — 5 weight points
A documented custody or medical-care episode meets the applicable safety and care duties.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A documented custody or medical-care episode meets the applicable safety and care duties. Hypothetical example: The reviewed care episode or merits finding affirmatively meets the identified duty. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Care duties largely met with a minor documented delay not defeating the benchmark. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Some needed care is provided but a material identified duty remains unmet. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes denial of required care or unsafe custody; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: Documented serious delay defeats most of the applicable care requirement. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving denial of required care or unsafe custody. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: An established grave denial of necessary medical aid in custody. |
C6 · Equal treatment — 5 weight points
A documented service or enforcement decision meets the applicable nondiscrimination/equal-treatment benchmark.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A documented service or enforcement decision meets the applicable nondiscrimination/equal-treatment benchmark. Hypothetical example: Affirmative case evidence establishes compliance with the equal-treatment benchmark. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: The standard is largely met with a minor documented treatment shortcoming. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: The documented decision contains both compliant and materially unequal treatment. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes established discriminatory treatment; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: Reviewed differential treatment seriously fails the applicable equal-treatment duty. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving established discriminatory treatment. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: A substantiated grave discriminatory enforcement or service decision. |
C7 · Report and evidence integrity — 5 weight points
A documented reporting/evidence episode meets accuracy, preservation and disclosure duties.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A documented reporting/evidence episode meets accuracy, preservation and disclosure duties. Hypothetical example: The reviewed reporting/preservation episode meets its sourced integrity duties. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Evidence preserved accurately with a minor documented nonmaterial logging defect. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Material records are accurate/preserved in part but an identified part fails. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes established falsification, evidence loss or deliberate concealment; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: A serious documented integrity failure defeats most required safeguards. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving established falsification, evidence loss or deliberate concealment. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: Substantiated deliberate material falsification or evidence concealment. |
A1 · Complaint intake access — 5 weight points
Published complaint intake is usable for its explicitly identified audience.
- Express route for identified audience
- Recipient and alternate around accused supervisor
- No-identification or third-party handling
- Review stages and result-notification target
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | All four fixed publication components are affirmatively present and usable in the identified readable set. |
| 3 | 3 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 2 | 2 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 1 | 1 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 0 | 0 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
A2 · Investigation quality — 5 weight points
A completed documented investigation addresses the material evidence, competing accounts and relevant issues.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A completed documented investigation addresses the material evidence, competing accounts and relevant issues. Hypothetical example: Complete reviewed investigation examines material evidence and competing accounts. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: All main issues investigated with a documented minor gap. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Significant evidence is reviewed but a material line of inquiry is omitted. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes seriously inadequate or biased investigation; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: Most material evidence or contrary accounts are not investigated. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving seriously inadequate or biased investigation. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: A substantiated sham investigation completely disregards decisive evidence. |
A3 · Supported findings and explanations — 5 weight points
A completed finding gives a reasoned conclusion supported by the reviewed evidence.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A completed finding gives a reasoned conclusion supported by the reviewed evidence. Hypothetical example: Reasoned final findings trace each material conclusion to reviewed evidence. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Main findings supported with a minor explanation gap. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Some conclusions have support but a material conclusion lacks explanation. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes unsupported or materially misleading final finding; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: The final explanation disregards decisive contradictory evidence. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving unsupported or materially misleading final finding. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: Established fabricated or wholly unsupported final findings. |
A4 · Corrective action and follow-through — 5 weight points
Documented corrective action appropriate to an established issue is completed and followed up.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: Documented corrective action appropriate to an established issue is completed and followed up. Hypothetical example: Appropriate corrective action and its required follow-through are documented complete. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Correction substantially completed with a minor documented follow-up gap. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Corrective steps partly completed; material follow-through remains deficient. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes failure to carry out warranted corrective action; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: Most warranted corrective action remains undone without adequate justification. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving failure to carry out warranted corrective action. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: Established complete failure to implement required grave-issue correction. |
A5 · Cooperation with external oversight — 5 weight points
A documented oversight episode shows compliance with the applicable oversight requests and requirements.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A documented oversight episode shows compliance with the applicable oversight requests and requirements. Hypothetical example: Complete relevant records show compliance with the applicable oversight requirements. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Oversight cooperation largely complete with a minor documented deficiency. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Material requirements are partly fulfilled and partly breached. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes established obstruction or noncompliance with oversight; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: Serious unjustified failure to comply with most oversight requirements. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving established obstruction or noncompliance with oversight. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: Substantiated deliberate grave obstruction of applicable oversight. |
T1 · Policy publication — 5 weight points
A bounded reviewed public operational-policy set meets the publication components.
- Readable operational policy text
- Identified issuer and effective/revision date
- Navigable index or clear policy coverage
- Revision/supersession information sufficient to identify the applicable version
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | All four fixed publication components are affirmatively present and usable in the identified readable set. |
| 3 | 3 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 2 | 2 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 1 | 1 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 0 | 0 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
T2 · Complaint and force outcome disclosure — 5 weight points
A bounded reviewed public outcome-reporting set meets the disclosure components.
- Defined reporting period and unit
- Complaint counts with final disposition distinctions
- Force incidents with review/outcome distinctions
- Scope, denominator and explanatory limitations
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | All four fixed publication components are affirmatively present and usable in the identified readable set. |
| 3 | 3 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 2 | 2 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 1 | 1 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 0 | 0 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
T3 · Budget and staffing disclosure — 5 weight points
A bounded reviewed budget/personnel publication set meets the disclosure components.
- Current fiscal-year police appropriation
- Separated operating/capital detail, current or latest completed year
- Sworn/civilian/reserve distinctions
- Dated filled/authorized positions and reconciled service scope
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | All four fixed publication components are affirmatively present and usable in the identified readable set. |
| 3 | 3 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 2 | 2 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 1 | 1 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 0 | 0 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
T4 · Handling documented records requests — 5 weight points
An actual documented request is handled accurately under the applicable scope, deadlines and disclosure/exemption duties.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: An actual documented request is handled accurately under the applicable scope, deadlines and disclosure/exemption duties. Hypothetical example: The actual request meets applicable timing, release and explanation duties. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: A request is largely handled correctly with a minor documented deficiency. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: A request is partly fulfilled but a material valid obligation is not met. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes unjustified withholding or serious failure to respond; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: An actual request suffers serious unjustified withholding or deadline failure. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving unjustified withholding or serious failure to respond. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: Established complete unlawful withholding or deliberate grave obstruction. |
S1 · Required-training completion — 5 weight points
Dated completion records establish that the identified required training was completed for the reviewed personnel and period.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: Dated completion records establish that the identified required training was completed for the reviewed personnel and period. Hypothetical example: Dated personnel-linked records verify the identified required completion. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Required completion largely established with a minor documented shortfall. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: The identified completion requirement is materially partly met. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes established failure of mandatory training; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: Most required training for the defined group remains uncompleted. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving established failure of mandatory training. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: Verified total failure of the identified mandatory training requirement. |
S2 · Supervisory review and correction — 5 weight points
Documented supervisory review identifies relevant issues and completes required corrective follow-through.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: Documented supervisory review identifies relevant issues and completes required corrective follow-through. Hypothetical example: Relevant review and required corrective follow-through are documented complete. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Review and correction substantially complete with a minor documented gap. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Meaningful review occurs but a material correction duty is unmet. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes established material supervisory failure; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: Most material supervisory review/correction duties are unfulfilled. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving established material supervisory failure. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: Substantiated grave supervisory failure and no required follow-through. |
P1 · Assistance and victim/crisis response — 5 weight points
A documented assistance/victim/crisis episode meets the applicable response and follow-through benchmark.
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | The reviewed episode affirmatively meets the stated benchmark: A documented assistance/victim/crisis episode meets the applicable response and follow-through benchmark. Hypothetical example: Complete reviewed evidence establishes the applicable assistance and follow-through. |
| 3 | The benchmark is largely met; a documented minor shortcoming does not materially defeat it. Identify the precise shortcoming. Hypothetical example: Response largely meets the benchmark with a minor documented shortcoming. |
| 2 | Evidence establishes materially mixed/partial fulfillment of this benchmark. Identify both fulfilled and failed elements. Hypothetical example: Assistance partly provided with a material identified unmet response duty. |
| 1 | Evidence establishes established failure to provide required assistance; little of the benchmark is met. Hypothetical example: Serious documented response shortcoming defeats most required assistance. |
| 0 | Evidence establishes complete benchmark failure or a substantiated grave breach involving established failure to provide required assistance. Identify the decision-maker and critical-finding flag when grave. Hypothetical example: Substantiated grave refusal of assistance required by the stated benchmark. |
P2 · Public access and communication — 5 weight points
A bounded reviewed police-service publication set supplies usable contact and routing information.
- Published police contact phone and physical/mail location, with route purpose identified
- Emergency/after-hours routing
- Published written police or public-record route
- Police-service assistance or escalation/response timetable
| Rating | Fixed anchor |
|---|---|
| 4 | All four fixed publication components are affirmatively present and usable in the identified readable set. |
| 3 | 3 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 2 | 2 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 1 | 1 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
| 0 | 0 of the four fixed publication components are affirmatively present in the identified readable set; remaining components are confirmed absent from that bounded set. |
Evidence and fair selection
Declare the review window and balanced routine, favorable and adverse search before coding. Keep legal duties, departmental requirements and TCF editorial expectations distinct. Allegations, settlements, employment actions, dismissals, accreditation and publicity retain their actual meaning. They do not automatically prove or disprove misconduct. Seek underlying evidence for disputed adverse claims; unresolved material disputes stay Unknown.
Multiple reports about one event are one observation. Do not count an audit and its underlying cases twice. The same source may support different checks only when separate facts answer separate questions. Raw crime totals, complaint counts, headcount and budget size are context, not automatic good- or bad-policing points.
Revisions and prior editions
The October 13 migration reassesses saved evidence against these new checks, with targeted official publication refreshes identified in each report. Older incident findings retain their original review limits. A changed score can reflect a new method or added evidence; it does not prove department behavior changed. Never rank departments whose grades cover different checks or selections. Shared-check comparisons still require comparable periods and disclosed sampling differences.
- Winona Police Department — earlier editions
- Bentonville Police Department — earlier editions
- Shannon County Sheriff’s Office — earlier editions
- Carter County Sheriff’s Office — earlier editions
- Aurora Police Department — earlier editions
- Rogers Police Department — earlier editions
- Springfield Police Department — earlier editions
Officer and single-incident models
Method 3.0 remains the working officer/incident rubric: rights and authority 30%; force, safety and aid 25%; honesty and evidence 25%; professional treatment 10%; reporting and correction 10%. Its composite gates remain 70% overall weighted coverage and 50% in each applicable core category, with the stated selection/context requirements. A single-incident grade is never a career rating. Archived Officer Method 1.0 and other saved files retain their original labels.
Public sentiment stays separate
The comment index requires at least 30 eligible deduplicated account-platform entries, three distinct discussions, two independently managed publishers and reliability checks. Only the latest eligible substantive evaluation per account-platform counts. The formula is 1 + 99 × (positive + 0.5 × mixed) ÷ eligible entries, rounded half up. It is not a resident-trust percentage and contributes no department grade points. Historical samples are not regenerated from missing raw comments.