Protective climate
Speak-up confidence, respectful conflict, safety adherence, support accessibility, pressure management and fair-review confidence.
Concerning-change climate
Time-bounded reports of unusual behavioural change, escalating conflict, threatening language, procedural bypass and multiple independent concerns.
Signal convergence
Confidence rises when different channels independently point toward the same team, time window or concrete situation. Correlated duplicates should not be counted as independent evidence.
Human disposition
Support, management intervention, operational investigation, security review or emergency action are distinct pathways. Sentinel should never collapse them into one generic “risk” label.
Two outputs. Never one accusatory score.
Protective Climate 0–100
Higher indicates a stronger climate for speaking up, respectful conflict, procedure adherence and access to support.
Attention Level
Routine → Review → Priority Review. This is a routing signal, not an assessment of guilt, intent or diagnosis.
Confidence
Confidence is based on independence, recency, specificity and convergence — not on how dramatic a single allegation sounds.
We earn accuracy empirically.
The prototype scoring is a product hypothesis. Production claims should only follow staged validation with real organisations and independent expert review.
Industrial-organisational psychology, behavioural threat assessment, HR, security, legal/privacy and employee representatives review every construct and item.
Evaluate internal consistency, test–retest stability where appropriate, item discrimination and response-quality effects.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis should test whether the proposed seven dimensions actually emerge in data.
Before comparing sites or countries, test whether constructs behave comparably across language, geography, sector and workforce groups.
Validate against review outcomes, confirmed policy/safety events, resolution quality and timeliness — not a simplistic promise to predict rare acts of violence.
Track how often signals lead to no substantiated concern, whether certain groups are disproportionately surfaced, and whether reviewers override the system.
Freeze a scoring version, preregister evaluation criteria, test prospectively, document performance and only then revise thresholds.
High-consequence action requires documented human judgment. Model output is evidence for review, never the decision itself.
Grounded in established principles.
CISA insider-threat guidance
CISA emphasises detecting and reporting concerning behaviours, multidisciplinary threat-management capability, contextual assessment and respectful interventions that consider dignity, rights and privacy.
View CISA guidance ↗FBI behavioural analysis
The FBI states that no single behaviour means someone is on a path to targeted violence; multiple concerning behaviours may indicate reason for concern.
View FBI guidance ↗NIST AI Risk Management Framework
NIST emphasises governance, measurement, human oversight and evaluation of AI risks, including the need to retain context when modelling complex human phenomena.
View NIST AI RMF ↗These sources inform design principles; they do not certify, endorse or validate NARGES Sentinel. Sentinel requires its own empirical validation before performance claims are made.