Capital Markets — Shadow Ratings
AIQ™ Shadow Ratings
Outside-in, estimated AI-governance ratings for U.S.-listed public companies — built entirely from public data, without the company's participation.
In development · Estimated · Not certified
Sample Report
Meridian Dynamics, Inc.
Meridian Dynamics, Inc.
NYSE: MRDNDiversified mid-cap industrial deploying AI in predictive maintenance and quality-control vision systems.
61 of the 73 publicly-collectible datapoints found
| Dimension | Weight | Contribution | Ceiling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic Alignment | 20% | 10.34 | 40 |
| Oversight & Accountability | 30% | 12.27 | 60 |
| Technical Robustness | 25% | 9.87 | 50 |
| Responsible AI & Compliance | 15% | 9.22 | 30 |
| Adaptability & Education | 10% | 4.96 | 20 |
What the public-data scan evidenced — a real, deployed AI program
- Board oversight is on the public record. A board AI committee with internal and external stakeholders, documented director AI training, and board AI-risk reporting all scored full — Oversight is Meridian’s densest observable area at 12.27 / 60.
- Governance scaffolding is disclosed. An acceptable-use policy, a maintained risk register, pre-deployment review, an ethics committee, and an incident-response plan all evidenced — the structural controls a public discloser can show.
- Transparency, recourse & public strategy. Client AI-use communication scored highly (96% confidence); a published DSAR process and the recourse composite carry Responsible AI & Compliance to 9.22 / 30, while a public AI strategy and disclosed roadmap anchor Strategic Alignment at 10.34 / 40.
Where governance lags deployment — the bottleneck
- Technical assurance is the weakest observable area. At 9.87 / 50, Technical Robustness is thinnest: no public evidence of TEVV methodology, adversarial testing, or training-data erasure capability — the validation fields that separate deployed AI from assured AI.
- Innovation & improvement signals are dark. Experimental-project, external-partnership, and improvement-effectiveness fields returned no public credit, holding Adaptability & Education to 4.96 / 20.
- Most of the corpus is simply not observable. Only 73 of 250 V3.3 datapoints (28%) are publicly collectible at all; the 192 private fields — internal audit results, DPIAs, MLOps telemetry — cannot be scored outside-in and are excluded, not zeroed.
Why the read is defensible — adversarial verification
- Composites credited only to the public floor. ai_maturity_assessment_conducted was held to 1/3rd credit (disclosure confirms the assessment exists but not its depth); zero-credit fields that were found (e.g. profiling_objection_mechanism_exists) are recorded as confirmed non-disclosures, not assumed absences.
- Public-only, source-backed, and ceiling-bounded. All 61 answered fields trace to a PUBLIC or MIXED-DISCLOSURE evidence path; no PRIVATE-only field was scored, so the result cannot exceed the observable ceiling. A low or absent score reflects non-disclosure, not proof a control is absent — reconcile against direct engagement before use.
ASSUMED / estimated Public-Data AIQ Score — built outside-in from public sources without the company’s participation. NOT an AIQ™ Audit score and NOT an AIQA Certification.
Illustrative example: Meridian Dynamics, Inc. is fictional; all figures are fabricated to demonstrate format.
Prefer to review the full sample offline? Download the complete illustrative Shadow Rating as a PDF.
Download full sampleIllustrative example. Meridian Dynamics is a fictional company; all figures are fabricated to demonstrate format. Not a rating of any real entity.
How it works
Three steps from public record to a scored estimate.
Every credited factor is backed by a cited public source. Data completeness and model confidence are reported separately — so you always see how much was found and how sure the model is in what it found.
Public-record intake
10-Ks, proxy filings, corporate and AI-governance disclosures, SEC and IP filings, AI-incident trackers, and news coverage are collected for the subject company.
Scored against the 73 publicly-observable datapoints
The full AIQ™ methodology comprises 250 datapoints. 73 of those are observable without company participation. Shadow Ratings score against that 73-item subset, weighted identically to the verified AIQ™ Score across the five governance dimensions.
Two independent trust signals
Every report ships with two independent readouts: Data Completeness (how many of the 73 publicly-observable datapoints were found) and a Confidence Grade (how certain the model is that what it found is accurate and current as of the scoring date). An analyst-reviewed report is delivered by email within 3 business days.
Methodology
Scored against the five governance dimensions.
Shadow Ratings apply the same weighting as a verified AIQ™ Score — scored only against the datapoints observable from public sources.
| Dimension | Weight | Ceiling |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic Alignment | 20% | 40 |
| Oversight & Accountability | 30% | 60 |
| Technical Robustness | 25% | 50 |
| Responsible AI & Compliance | 15% | 30 |
| Adaptability & Education | 10% | 20 |
Confidence Grade
How sure is the model that what it found is accurate — and current?
Confidence is separate from Data Completeness. Completeness measures how many of the 73 publicly-collectible datapoints were found. Confidence measures how certain the model is that those findings are accurate and up-to-date as of the scoring date — reflecting cross-source corroboration, filing recency, and inference load.
Findings are cross-corroborated across multiple primary sources and reflect recent filings and disclosures. Model inference is minimal.
Material findings are supported, but some factors rely on single sources or older filings. Some model inference required; report notes where.
Substantial reliance on stale filings, single sources, or model inference. Treat as directional; a verified AIQ™ Rating is recommended.
Adversarial verification
Every credited factor is backed by a cited public source. Overclaimed disclosures are removed before scoring. Where public sources conflict, the more conservative reading prevails.
Dispute & correction path
A named company may request review of the public data underlying its estimate. Engaging AIQA directly converts a Shadow estimate into a verified AIQ™ Score.
AIQ™ Shadow Ratings and AIQ™ Scores are statements of opinion as of the date expressed, not statements of current or historical fact.
For informational purposes only. Not investment, legal, tax, or compliance advice, and not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security, or to do (or refrain from doing) business with any entity.
Provided “as is” without warranties of any kind. Shadow Ratings are estimated from public data without the subject company’s participation; coverage varies by disclosure and is reflected in the confidence grade. Scores do not constitute regulatory compliance, certification, or legal assurance. A named company may request review of the underlying public data.
AIQ™ and AIQ Score™ are trademarks of AIQA Global, LLC. Scores do not constitute regulatory compliance, legal advice, or investment advice. No assurance is provided regarding future performance, risk outcomes, or insurance eligibility.