Diamond means the credited creator made the full substance of the work, or a solo-equivalent amount of the work, with verified proof. The creator handled the core authorship, creation, ownership, mass assignment, and final claim without another hidden creative contributor.

Distribution, hosting, publishing, platform access, financing, market reach, public reception, sales, fame, or usefulness do not reduce Diamond unless another person or entity created part of the actual substance of the work.

Example: one person writes, designs, builds, owns, verifies, and publishes a website, song, paper, app, framework, strategy, or creative work without another creative contributor.

Corundum means the credited creator clearly dominates the work, but the work is not purely solo. Another person, company, publisher, studio, producer, editor, developer, inventor, institution, or support structure contributed in a real but limited way.

This is the highest non-Diamond tier. The credited creator remains the main creative force, but the authorship record is not fully solo or solo-equivalent.

Example: a creator writes most of a book but a publisher, editor, illustrator, or rights holder materially supports the final public work. Another example is an inventor who dominates the invention, but a company or second inventor contributes to the final product path.

Topaz means the credited creator leads the work and owns most of the creative mass, but assistance from others is more than minor. The main creator is still clearly responsible for the direction, identity, and core substance of the work.

The work remains creator-led, but the ledger shows meaningful help from other people, tools, teams, editors, assistants, production support, or institutional contributors.

Example: a researcher designs the theory and writes the paper, but another researcher, institution, editor, data source, or collaborator contributes enough to lower the claim below Corundum.

Quartz means the work is collaborative, but the credited creator still has the strongest identifiable lead share. The creator meaningfully leads the concept, execution, or authorship, but other contributors carry important parts of the work.

This tier fits projects where authorship is real but shared. The credited creator cannot claim solo authorship, but they are not merely a figurehead either.

Example: a film, strategy, software project, music record, or research work where one person drives the core idea while a team contributes major pieces of production, execution, editing, performance, design, or implementation.

Orthoclase means the work is normally collaborative. Multiple contributors are necessary to explain the final object, and no clean solo or dominant-creator claim controls the entire work.

The credited creator may be important, but the work’s final substance depends on a broader contributor map.

Example: a company-built product, studio-built release, production-heavy film, business system, or technical project where authorship is distributed across creators, operators, producers, developers, owners, or institutions.

Apatite means the work is team-built. The credited creator may have a real role, but the final work depends heavily on several contributors, organizations, or production layers.

This score does not mean the work is bad. It means the authorship is not concentrated in one creator.

Example: a brand, product, invention, platform, campaign, or entertainment work where multiple people or entities created the substance and the public credit does not fully represent one person’s authorship.

Fluorite means the credited creator has some creative connection to the work, but the final result is heavily constructed through outside contributors, systems, institutions, companies, assistants, templates, production layers, or external execution.

The credited claim may still be valid in part, but the work cannot honestly be treated as creator-led.

Example: a business, media product, public-facing brand, or technical object where the credited person is part of the story, but most of the final substance came from a wider structure.

Calcite means the attribution record has a serious authorship problem. Hidden contributors, ghost authorship, unclear ownership, credit mismatch, disputed contribution, or missing component proof prevents the public claim from being trusted at a higher tier.

The work may be useful, famous, profitable, funny, popular, or culturally important. That does not make it Diamond. This tier measures authorship clarity, not market success.

Example: a product or work becomes a hit, but the public-facing credit hides the people, company, team, writers, developers, inventors, or production layers that actually made the substance.

Gypsum means the credited creator has limited authorship because most of the substance appears to be ghostwritten, assigned, outsourced, manufactured, or produced by others.

The public credit may still point to one person or brand, but the component ledger does not support that person as the real creator of the work’s substance.

Example: a credited person appears on the work, but writers, contractors, producers, agencies, employees, or hidden contributors created most of the actual material.

Talc means the credited creator has only a minimal creative connection to the final work. There may be a name, brand, appearance, prompt, approval, performance, or ownership claim, but very little verified creative mass belongs to the credited creator.

This tier protects the system from treating exposure, authority, branding, ownership, or public association as actual authorship.

Example: someone is attached to a work mostly by name, funding, platform, approval, or surface-level involvement, while the real substance was created elsewhere.

Artificial means the claim cannot be credited as original authorship under the framework. The work may be filler, copied, non-original, unsupported, mechanically assembled, attribution-free, or too disconnected from a verified creator claim.

Artificial does not mean the public will reject it. Something can be artificial and still become popular. The score only measures authorship substance, not public reception.

Example: copied content, empty filler, unsupported generated output, recycled material, fake attribution, or a work where no credited creator can be verified as creating the substance.