I think I’m going to use Sasquatch as a metric of accountability/accuracy.
One Sasquatch = enough photographs and/or evidence to warrant an investigation, particularly into the evidence if it’s something new, but not enough evidence to conclude definitively that something exists.
The metric is based on the belief of the creature Sasquatch. A lot of people believe in Sasquatch, and there are all kinds of tales — including some very creepy compelling ones — but there’s just not enough evidence to conclude a Sasquatch actually exists. So far, most photographs and video of a Sasquatch have been debunked. It’s still possible there’s such a creature, but unless more definitive evidence (as opposed to more evidence of the non-definitive sort) appears, there always has to be a certain degree of… hesitation… in accepting the conclusion that Sasquatch exists.
A Sasquatch value cannot be increased by more of the same evidence — the evidence must bring some new information to the table. Each new piece of information that cannot be attributed to a simpler explanation increases the Sasquatch value a small degree. For example, it doesn’t matter if one person claims they saw a Sasquatch, or a thousand people claimed they saw a Sasquatch.
A Sasquatch value of 10 means that the item, effect, or creature in question can be touched, reproduced, observed by a person who is not inclined toward believing it. Or, if you prefer, that only a real dingbat would insist it didn’t. For example, apples have a Sasquatch rating of 10 because no matter whether or not you believe them, they’ll still leave a bruise if thrown at the head with sufficient force.
Sasquatch values only go to 10 in Newtonian space.
A Sasquatch value of less than 1 is acknowledgement that the thing is completely imaginary.
It’s a work in progress…