A property score should be allowed to say “insufficient data.”
BridgePoint is developing the BridgePoint Integrity Index (BII) as a transparent 0–100 integrity/resilience context index. The first design rule is deliberately conservative: if evidence coverage and confidence do not meet the publication gate, BridgePoint does not invent a numeric score.
What BII is intended to measure
BII is designed to combine physical-component health evidence, source-labelled hazard exposure, recovery or mitigation evidence, freshness, provenance, evidence coverage and uncertainty. Higher values are intended to mean stronger evidence-supported property integrity/resilience context after calibration.
What BII is not
It is not an “exact structural survival probability.” It is not an insurance price, lending score, investment recommendation, coverage determination, engineering certification or claim-validity decision. Those uses require separate validation, governance and jurisdiction-specific review.
Why the score stays separate from confidence
A numerical index and confidence are different things. BridgePoint exposes confidence, observed component count, data coverage, reason codes and model version separately. If a future property reaches 82/100 but the evidence is thin or stale, the confidence must make that visible.
How distribution can work without deceptive injection
BridgePoint has published an opt-in embeddable BII badge and a read-only machine contract. A site owner or user can deliberately add the badge to a GIS application, internal dashboard or permitted web property. A user-initiated browser-extension preview can perform address lookups without silently scraping or modifying third-party property portals.