A score should explain uncertainty, not hide it
The planned review model separates confidence in contact data from review of the message itself.
Keep different questions separate
Is the address formatted correctly? Does the organization or role match a confirmed source? Is the proposed message accurate and appropriate? These are separate checks. A future review could show known, missing and contradictory fields and explain why a record needs approval, review or blocking.
A number from 0 to 100 would summarize a defined method, not prove identity, consent or deliverability. External data sources or a Snov.io connection must only be named as available if an implementation and current access are confirmed.
Hard stops still apply
An unsubscribe, invalid address or missing permission must block an email regardless of score. A high confidence in contact data cannot make an unsupported message safe. The contact score and message quality should remain separate decisions. Cadensy’s verification model and integrations are planned, not live claims.
Have a question about the Cadensy project?
Talk with us about current scope and product availability.