Methodology.

The SilverScore methodology is a layered, risk-adjusted composite scoring framework applied to every AL, IL, memory care, and CCRC facility in our scope. The approach is published, the update history is versioned, and the advisory council reviews material changes before they ship.

This page covers the principles that govern the methodology. The dimension-level specifications, weightings, and cut-points are documented separately and maintained by the methodology team under council oversight.

Principles

1. Universal scope. Every facility within the published segment and geographic scope is rated. Ratings are not a commercial product; they are an infrastructure output. Subscription to SilverOcean or any other commercial service does not influence rating eligibility.
2. Data contribution improves precision, not direction.The uncertainty band around a facility's rating narrows as more data becomes available. The rating itself does not shift favorably based on contribution. A facility with rich contributed data and poor outcomes scores poorly. A facility with only public data and good outcomes scores well, with a wider uncertainty band.
3. Data completeness is published alongside every rating. A visible indicator shows how much of the ideal dataset is available for each facility. This provides institutional buyers with a secondary signal on how much to weight a given rating, and creates transparent pressure for operators to contribute more data.
4. Reconciliation favors methodology over self-report. Where operator-submitted data conflicts with public records (state inspection reports, CMS data where applicable, regulatory actions), the methodology defers to the public record and flags the conflict for review.
5. Methodology changes originate from methodological review. Changes do not originate from commercial complaints, operator requests, or customer pressure. The methodology team owns the change pipeline under advisory council oversight.
6. Reproducibility is required.Given a facility's data at a point in time, the methodology produces a specific score. A rating that cannot be reproduced is not a rating.
7. Risk adjustment is non-optional. Facilities serving higher-acuity populations will show worse outcomes on some dimensions purely as a function of resident mix. Risk-adjustment corrects for this. Implementation is documented and reviewable.

Input data sources

SilverScore ratings draw from a mix of public records, regulatory data, and (for facilities where an operator has explicitly consented) operational data from connected source systems.

Public and regulatory

• State health and social services inspection records for every state that publishes AL and MC inspection data (49 of 50 states plus DC as of April 2026)
• State licensing and complaint databases
• CMS data where applicable (for CCRCs and communities with SNF components)
• Department of Labor wage and hour enforcement records
• Applicable state-level elder abuse and maltreatment registries

Reputation and satisfaction

• Consumer review platforms, weighted by recency, review volume, and manipulation signals
• Partner satisfaction survey data where data partnerships permit (Activated Insights and others in formation)
• Ombudsman and advocacy group records where publicly available

Operator-contributed (opt-in only)

• Read-only integration with the operator's EHR, CRM, finance, and workforce systems
• Operational metrics: occupancy, length of stay, move-out reasons, care level trajectory
• Workforce metrics: turnover, consistency of assignment, training completion, staffing ratios
• Clinical signals: hospitalization patterns, fall data, medication events

Update cadence

Ratings refresh as source data refreshes. Public inspection data flows in as states publish it. Operator-contributed data flows as source systems update. The visible timestamp on each facility's rating reflects the most recent material input.

Methodology versions are stable for quarterly release windows. Between releases, the algorithm is fixed; only input data changes. At each quarterly review, the methodology team proposes changes to the advisory council, which approves or defers. Any facility's rating computed under a prior methodology version remains reproducible from the versioned methodology archive.