SQI Scoring Explained: How Acacia Ranks Sources

What SQI is

The Source Quality Index (0–1) scores each item on provenance, recency, and internal consistency. 0.9+ means peer-reviewed or primary regulatory text; 0.5–0.8 means reputable secondary coverage; below 0.4 treat as tertiary or unverified. The score is a reading aid, not a verdict: it ranks how much weight a source deserves in your synthesis, not whether its claims are true.

What feeds the score

• Source authority — journals and regulators beat blogs and forums.
• Evidence level — empirical studies with citations score above opinions.
• Cross-pillar reach — content that links concepts across pillars earns a semantic bonus.

The cross-pillar component is deliberate: a source that connects compliance, markets, and data-engineering concerns is more likely to survive contact with the real world than one that only cites itself. The full computation is exposed in the admin quality dashboard, so the score is auditable rather than opaque.

Reading SQI in practice

Use SQI to sequence your reading: build foundations from 0.85+ sources, then triangulate claims from lower-scored items. A single high-SQI source is not a citation chain — trace the originals. Scores decay as sources age, which is why AcaciaFund re-runs freshness checks weekly. A 0.9 score from 2015 is still authoritative for historical fact, but treat its forward-looking claims with the same skepticism you would apply to any aging analysis.

Limits of the index

• SQI measures source characteristics, not truth — a well-sourced error still scores well.
• Recency weighting penalises slow-burn scholarship; foundational papers may sit below newer secondary coverage.
• Never cite SQI as evidence in your own work; cite the underlying source.

References

• AcaciaFund — Research Methodology(documentation)
• AcaciaFund — Source Synthesis Pipeline(documentation)
• Booth, Colomb & Williams, The Craft of Research(book)