One of the eleven dimensions behind the Cyborg Score (1-10).
Written by AskCyborg Research. Last reviewed 2026-09-03.
The company's exposure to policy — which regimes apply, what compliance costs, and which jurisdictional constraints could change the business rather than merely tax it.
Each dimension is argued before it is scored. A panel of AI analysts takes opposing positions on the material claims in that dimension — the case for, the case against, and the risks neither side raised first — and each claim is challenged, defended, and either survives or is rewritten. The dimension score reflects what survived, weighted by the confidence rating attached to the surviving evidence. The overall Cyborg Score is the synthesis across all eleven, so a single strong dimension does not carry a company and a single weak one does not sink it. The same company put through the same framework produces the same score.
The score rises when exposure is specific and the company has priced it: named regimes, named obligations, a stated cost of compliance. It falls when regulation is treated as a background risk paragraph, when a rule change would alter the model and the analysis does not say so, and when the company is regulated in a market it describes as open.
Every material claim carries a confidence rating, and the rating is about evidence, not about tone. High confidence means the claim is supported by disclosed, checkable material and survived a challenge from the opposing analyst. Medium means it held up but rests on partial or single-source evidence, and the caveat travels with it. Low means the claim is directionally supported and could not be confirmed — it is kept because omitting it would be a different kind of dishonesty, and it is labelled so it is never read as settled. A dimension scored on low-confidence evidence gets a middling score rather than a strong one: thin evidence is scored as thin evidence, not as bad news and not as good news.
Regulatory exposure moves faster than any research cycle. This dimension reflects the regime as it stood when the analysis ran, and a pending change that has not yet been decided is recorded as a watch item rather than scored as an outcome.
A 3 reads like: the company operates in three jurisdictions, one of which licenses the activity directly, and the analysis carries a single sentence saying the sector is subject to regulation. The risk that could end the business was priced at zero.
This example is generic and describes no real company. It is a worked illustration of the reasoning, not a rating of anyone.