Methodology and evidence standards

Where the figures come from

The four topline evidence figures on this site come from Reckton’s internal case digests (June 2026), covering 21 San Francisco investigations and 1 BART investigation. They are self-reported by Reckton, not independently audited. The investigations were self-initiated research done on Reckton’s own account; no client commissioned them. The underlying records are available on email request, no call required.

Definitions

$11B+

Combined spending of the named department universes screened: Public Works ($7.0B), Housing ($2.95B), Public Health ($989M), COVID emergency ($926M), Children & Youth ($822M), Senior services ($597M), and reentry, arts, workforce, and HIV services plus 10 more department programs ($1.6B).

22

Distinct public-record investigations: 21 in San Francisco and 1 at BART.

231

Organizations examined across those investigations. 42 were affirmatively cleared on the record.

88.5%

Share of raw leads discarded as noise before professional review, as recorded in the case digests. Surviving leads are challenged by source re-verification, innocent-explanation testing, opposing-counsel attack, and working-paper standards checks before a reviewer sees them.

Evidence grading

A CERTIFIED and B STRONG items are supported by authoritative primary records. C LEAD needs more corroboration. D UNVERIFIED-gap has incomplete identity or sourcing and is not promoted. X REJECTED did not survive review. Indicators are not determinations. Nothing Reckton produces asserts wrongdoing.

Boundaries

• Public records only, as the starting point.
• Party names are withheld on public pages.
• Engagement material is never published without written consent.