What "Trust Score" means here
Trust-oriented scores summarize model confidence and signal strength from forensic analysis — not a credit score, legal finding, or regulator-approved metric. They help reviewers prioritize attention; they do not replace human judgment or contractual SLAs.
Scores across modalities
Text, image, audio, and video each produce analysis outputs with different signal types (e.g., spectral anomalies, lip-sync drift, token-level patterns). Compare scores only within the same modality and analyzer version — not across unlike asset types.
Human-in-the-loop requirements
Define policy thresholds for escalate vs publish vs reject. Log reviewer identity separately from model output. For Annex III-sensitive contexts, ensure no sole automated decision — scores inform review; humans decide.
Signed PDF and QR validation
Export signed reports for audit trails. QR lookup validates report integrity — useful for procurement and legal follow-up. Reports document what the system assessed at a point in time; they are not guaranteed court exhibits.
Procurement-safe language
Acceptable: "probabilistic detection supporting human review." Avoid vendor claims of "100% accuracy" or "guaranteed deepfake detection." Align RFP language with explainability and evidence exports actually shipped in the repository.
Known limitations
Adversarial content, heavy compression, and novel generators can produce ambiguous scores. Missing provenance is not a score — document absence explicitly. Retest after model updates; store analyzer version in case records.