Loading...
Optional analytics
Help us understand which pages are useful. Analytics stays off unless you accept. Essential sign-in and checkout cookies are unaffected.
Loading...
This proposed 0–100 rubric organizes evidence a listing may provide: independent opinions, imaging, lab analysis, and restoration or composite disclosure. A numeric score cannot prove that a fossil is genuine, correctly identified, lawfully owned, or accurately valued.
Restoration is not automatically deception. The rubric rewards clear disclosure and supporting images while separating identity evidence from condition and market value. Undisclosed repair discovered later should trigger additional review, but a remote score still cannot quantify every material accurately.
Presence is not validity: an uploaded report, scan, or opinion receives no evidentiary weight until the issuer, specimen identifier, method, date, images, and stated limitations can be connected to the offered object.
Independent evidence is stronger: a seller description and certificate record the seller’s representations. Reproducible images, documented methods, and an opinion from a qualified person without an undisclosed financial conflict can add support, but none is infallible.
Contradictions override totals: a serious conflict in specimen identity, formation, anatomy, restoration, or document linkage should pause the decision even when many checklist fields are complete. A simple point total must never average away a critical contradiction.
Before live use, the proposed factors and weights should be tested against a labeled set of independently examined specimens, with reviewer agreement, false-confidence cases, and changed decisions reported. Until that work exists, Jurassic Depot presents this as an evidence checklist—not a calibrated probability of authenticity.
Jurassic Depot is designing evidence-based listing checks. Until live review operations exist, use these guides to demand proof and obtain independent advice.