1. Source quality
We look at where the information comes from
Formal disclosures, regulatory notices, and credible independent reporting are treated differently from reposted headlines, promotional pages, or ambiguous aggregation.
Public methodology overview
Not every public company event should carry the same weight.
The Lumen Index applies one consistent review process across monitored accounts so stronger evidence is treated differently from weaker or routine reporting. The goal is not to predict outcomes. The goal is to give teams a disciplined outside view of material company change.
1. Source quality
Formal disclosures, regulatory notices, and credible independent reporting are treated differently from reposted headlines, promotional pages, or ambiguous aggregation.
2. Company grounding
A company mention is not enough. The review process looks for evidence that the monitored company is actually the organization undergoing the change.
3. Evidence completeness
Signals are stronger when there is a clear source, a usable date, and enough context to understand what happened. Headline-only or thin evidence is treated more cautiously.
4. Materiality
Some events are real but still not material enough to carry the same portfolio meaning as a workforce reduction, a confirmed breach, or a structural company change.
5. Consistency across the portfolio
The value comes from comparability. One repeatable evidence process helps teams review many accounts without treating every headline as equal.
Stronger evidence
More limited evidence
Customer and account teams do not need every public mention. They need a calmer way to see which company changes may deserve a closer look.
This is why The Lumen Index is built as an evidence process rather than a generic alert stream. The product is designed to help teams compare accounts under the same external lens, with enough discipline that the signal layer can be used in real portfolio review.