This bulletin describes the Bureau's internal process for reviewing subscriber-track applications. It is published in the public interest and is intended to demystify the fourteen-day review cycle for new applicants.
Stage One: Receipt and Triage
An application is created when a subscriber submits their personal information, chosen category, and a list of documented achievements with proof URLs. Triage occurs within twenty-four hours. The reviewer-on-call confirms that the submission meets minimum-data requirements: name supplied, category selected, at least three achievements documented, at least one verifiable URL per achievement.
Submissions failing triage are returned with a reviewer note explaining the deficiency. Submissions clearing triage advance to Stage Two within the same business day.
Stage Two: Citation Verification
Each supporting URL is fetched. The reviewer confirms that the URL resolves, that the cited content describes the candidate, and that the source is in a documented tier (academic, court record, government archive, major journalistic outlet, or — for newer figures — major social platform with public-record posture).
URLs that fail to resolve, that have been edited to remove the cited content, or that originate from sources not in any tier are flagged. The reviewer requests replacement citations from the applicant. Stage Two typically takes two to four business days.
Stage Three: AI-Drafted Bio
Once citations are verified, the application enters the AI drafting queue. Claude — the Bureau's contracted language-model provider — generates a bureaucratic-voice bio of 200–400 words from the applicant's achievements. The bio is generated, not written by the applicant, in part to ensure voice consistency across thousands of entries and in part to prevent applicants from writing their own marketing copy.
The AI draft is not published. It is delivered to a Bureau reviewer, who edits the draft in the admin console before approval. Reviewers are instructed to preserve voice while correcting factual drift, smoothing transitions, and ensuring every claim in the prose traces to a citation in the supplied evidence.
Stage Four: Review Approval
The reviewer either approves the application — which causes the Bureau's certification system to issue a certificate ID and create a public entry — or rejects it with a written reason. Rejection reasons fall into three categories: insufficient documentation, voice or factual problems irreparable from the supplied input, or category mismatch (the applicant's documented conduct does not fit the chosen category).
Approved applicants are notified by email. Rejected applicants receive a reviewer note and the option to resubmit with corrected materials. There is no review fee; the $1.00/month subscription begins on approval, not on submission.
What Reviewers Actually Look For
Reviewers are instructed to optimise for three properties: factual accuracy, voice consistency, and category fit. They are explicitly instructed not to optimise for "interesting" or "entertaining" content. The Bureau's position is that the registry's value lies in completeness and consistency, not in editorial selection.
This is also why reviewers do not edit the SCUMBAG INDEX score. The score is a mechanical function of the submitted inputs; if the score seems wrong, the dispute mechanism is the appropriate channel.
FAQ
How long does review take?
The Bureau commits to a fourteen-day window from submission to disposition. Median time is closer to seven days.
Can I expedite review?
No. The Bureau does not offer expedited processing. Reviewers process applications in the order received.
Can I write my own bio?
No. All bios are drafted by the Bureau's AI pipeline and edited by a reviewer. This ensures voice consistency across the registry.
What happens if I disagree with the AI-drafted bio?
Reviewers are the editorial layer. If you believe the draft misrepresents your supplied achievements, the appropriate response is to file a dispute against the specific factual claim — not to request a rewrite.
Can I see the AI draft before publication?
The reviewer sees the AI draft and edits before approval. The applicant sees only the published version.