Corrections

Wonderblocks previously carried a verified label. Its preserved receipt does not establish that the complete instrument was finished before consultation of an AI comparison candidate, as the current human-first standard requires. The label is now legacy pending re-verification. The 155/200 score, original receipt and recorded judgments are unchanged. This is a correction to the verification claim, not a revision of the score.

The classification check now requires a separate human-first eligibility record as well as a valid receipt. Receipt existence alone no longer confers verified status.

TV Intelligentsia publishes a methodology and asks to be judged against it. That has to include being honest about our own history, so here is the plain version.

The early catalog was not built the way our current standard requires. Our mechanism for early scoring was inadequate for the company we aim to be. We reviewed and approved each score against our methodology, but the degree of AI assistance and the depth of viewing varied by title. For many titles we had watched the work and could judge the numbers against real familiarity. For others we investigated the title, checked the score against critical consensus and our own knowledge. Our record keeping in that period did not meet the standard we hold now. We did not keep adequate per-title records of how each score was reached or by whom, or verifiable receipts of the component judgments behind it. As the catalog and its audience grew, it became clear that greater accountability and record keeping were needed, particularly to ensure that every score is conceived primarily through human judgment.

That is what we have now built, and this note marks the line.

What changed, as of August 2026:

1. A standing rule on AI. AI may generate candidate assessments or assist structured analysis. It may not watch a work, serve as the rater of record, or publish a final score without named human review and adoption.
2. Human-first sessions. New scores are produced by a named rater who completes the full instrument, all thirteen sub-metric judgments plus the five SEL competencies on children's titles, before consulting any AI candidate, consensus number, or prior score. Each session records the rater, the viewing basis, and the role AI played, if any.
3. Preserved records. Component judgments are locked in verifiable receipts. The first receipt-backed titles are already published, and every score published since the standard took effect carries one.
4. A verification program for the existing catalog. We are re-verifying legacy scores title by title under the current standard, starting with the children's catalog and the titles readers use most. Each title's page now says which class its score is in. Scores that have not yet been re-verified are labeled as legacy scores; as re-assessment lands, they either graduate to the verified class or the number is retired while the page and its history remain.

What did not change. The rubric itself, the published formula, the tier thresholds, and our editorial independence rules are the same. Our flagship editorial work, including the TVI Kids Essentials, was built on full viewings and joint founder review and stands. One more thing worth saying plainly, because readers ask: Cordelia's name goes on the work she has personally reviewed, the Essentials, the editorials, and the methodology itself. The rest of the children's catalog has always been methodology-reviewed rather than reviewed title by title, and that is what the legacy label on those pages means.

Why we are saying this now. We found the gap between our current standard and our early practice, and a ratings company that publishes a corrections log has to apply the same discipline to itself. Trust in a score depends on knowing how it was made. For the early catalog, the honest answer is: reviewed and approved by us, with AI assistance and viewing depth that varied by title. For everything since the standard took effect, the answer is: made by a named person, on the record, with the receipts to prove it.

Questions about any specific score are welcome at jordan@tvintelligentsia.com. The full technical detail of the verification program lives on our methodology page.

A catalog audit found that 85 of 225 kids entries displayed a TVI Score that did not reconcile with the three displayed dimension values under the published formula. No adult entry failed the same arithmetic check.

TVI corrected the kids catalog in one batch. Eighty-two composites changed to match the published dimensions. Seven crossed a tier:

• Liberty's Kids: 158 to 162, Stimulating to Masterclass.
• Brainchild: 158 to 164, Stimulating to Masterclass.
• Cyberchase: 156 to 165, Stimulating to Masterclass.
• Curious George: 154 to 161, Stimulating to Masterclass.
• Wishbone: 154 to 162, Stimulating to Masterclass.
• The Breadwinner: 154 to 160, Stimulating to Masterclass.
• Shaun the Sheep: 130 to 126, Stimulating to Competent.

Three prior composites were retained while one input was changed so that the public dimensions and total would reconcile: Mister Rogers' Neighborhood kept 192 while Cognitive Stimulation moved from 42 to 45; Sesame Street kept 188 while Cognitive Stimulation moved from 40 to 44; Numberblocks kept 176 while Craft & Quality moved from 38 to 35. These three holds involved editorial discretion rather than automatic formula application, which is why they are disclosed here.

After the reconciliation, every kids entry reproduces its published composite under the public formula. The batch was a correction to TVI's calculation and publication history, not a response to access, a producer, or a commercial relationship.

TVI found five duplicate title records and one franchise-level umbrella record that conflicted with the catalog's one-record-per-work policy. The duplicate or umbrella rows were removed and their old URLs redirect to the surviving canonical pages.

Three surviving records received an explicit merge score rather than silently inheriting one of the conflicting duplicate values:

• Blue Is the Warmest Colour: 147 to 158; the duplicate record had shown 169.
• Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts: 140 to 141; the duplicate record had shown 142.
• The Great British Bake Off: 127 to 105; the duplicate record had shown 82.

House retained 157 when its duplicate House M.D. record at 170 was removed. Formula 1: Drive to Survive retained 125 when its duplicate at 129 was removed. The Knives Out franchise umbrella at 127 was removed in favor of per-film entries.

The Scott Frank series was held twice in the catalog, once as Department Q at 159 and once as Dept. Q at 143. Both records pointed at the same work. The two numbers were independent scorings of one series, which is a reliability problem rather than a data-entry slip, and the gap between them is larger than TVI would accept between two raters.

The surviving record uses the show's released title, Dept. Q, and carries 159, the higher of the two figures, under the merge policy that a reader who saw either number should not find the score lowered without a fresh viewing. No re-watch was performed, so this is a record merge and not a reassessment. The Department Q URL now redirects to the surviving page.

Four further duplicate records were removed the same day without changing any surviving score: Rambo: First Blood in favor of First Blood, Fast & Furious in favor of The Fast and the Furious, KUWTK in favor of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, and Kipo S2-3 in favor of the full-series Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts record.

156 to 181 Stimulating to Masterclass

TVI originally scored the series 156 and published it as Stimulating. On re-examination it scored 181 across Cognitive Stimulation 46, Educational Value 44, and Craft & Quality 46, which places it in the Masterclass tier. The revision was driven by the rubric, not by the work. The methodology developed between the two assessments, and the earlier score reflected a narrower reading of educational value than the published rubric now supports.

This is the largest single-title reassessment in this public log. The prior number is recorded here permanently rather than being replaced quietly. The series was subsequently designated TVI Kids Essential #2, ratified 2026-06-25.

147 to 159 Stimulating, tier unchanged

TVI published The Invite at 147 on 2026-07-27 as a legacy score, meaning no component-judgment record existed behind it. On 2026-08-30 both founders watched the complete film and rescored it in a full receipted session under the current standard, blind to the catalog number. The verified score is 159, across Cognitive Stimulation 40, Educational Value 37, and Craft & Quality 43.

Nearly all of the movement sits in one dimension. The legacy score read Educational Value at 30; the receipted session found 37, on evidence the earlier assessment had under-weighted: the film's rendering of emotional understanding, the practical relationship behavior it stages, and how its ideas pay off across contexts. Craft & Quality did not move at all. This is the first legacy score replaced through the verification programme, and the component judgments behind the new number are on file.

One disclosure: before watching, one rater had seen the film's aggregate review percentage as part of deciding to watch it, before any intent to score existed. That exposure is recorded on the session receipt. Neither rater knew TVI's own prior number or tier.

157 to 179 Stimulating to Masterclass

TVI carried The Wild Robot at 157 as a legacy score with a SEL score of 40, meaning no component-judgment record and no declared reference viewer stood behind either number. On September 4 and 5, 2026, both founders watched the complete film across two sittings and rescored it in a full receipted session on the kids branch, eighteen judgments in all, blind to the prior number, tier, and SEL. The verified score is 179 (Cognitive Stimulation 45, Educational Value 42, Craft & Quality 48), which places it in the Masterclass tier, with a SEL score of 45. Receipt 13eb462e is on file.

This is the largest movement on any receipted title so far and the first to cross a tier. Every Cognitive Stimulation sub-metric rose, and the recorded reason is the reference viewer: the anchors were judged against an attentive nine-year-old on a first viewing, as the kids branch requires, where the legacy number had been read against no declared viewer. Educational Value rose on critical thinking and emotional intelligence. Craft & Quality moved two points.

Disclosures: the film was chosen from a same-day planning brief that ranked candidate films for editorial relevance and contained no scores; the viewing was split across two evenings; both written first passes are preserved on the receipt, including three values that changed after discussion, with the reasons recorded.

TVI's catalog rationale and several list pages described Ms. Rachel (Songs for Littles) as created by a speech-language pathologist. That was wrong. Rachel Accurso is an educator whose graduate training is in early childhood development and music education; her program draws on strategies informed by developmental and speech-language experts, but she is not a speech-language pathologist. The claim has been corrected on every surface that carried it. No score changed.

Legacy copy on a small number of pages could be read to imply that Cordelia Witty, EdS., NCSP, personally reviewed every children's title in the catalog. Her role is defined on her author page: she shapes and reviews the TVI Kids methodology, including its CASEL-aligned SEL framework, and personally reviews and signs the work attributed to her. Pages carrying broader phrasing have been aligned to that language. No scores changed.

The original Project Hail Mary news analysis described the $655 million box office threshold as domestic and said the film had no pre-existing intellectual property. The figure was worldwide, and the film adapts Andy Weir's 2021 novel. The article now states both facts accurately and links the supporting sources. The score and conclusion are unchanged.

The original Adolescence news analysis described its four BAFTA Television Awards as a limited-series record. BAFTA's official release says the program was the only one to win four categories, but does not call that result a record. The article now uses the official description and links the source. The score and conclusion are unchanged.

The 2026 Emmy prediction page remained live with pre-nomination language and an incorrect July 15 announcement date after the Television Academy announced nominees on July 8. The page is now preserved as a dated prediction record and links the official announcement. No TVI title score changed.