The Rio Scale of Extraterrestrial Contacts V2

An updated version of the Rio scale was recently proposed: Forgan, Wright, Tarter, Korpela, Siemion, Almár, and Piotelat 2018 Rio 2.0: revising the Rio scale for SETI detections | International Journal of Astrobiology | Cambridge Core It follows the original one in having (quality)x(reliability), but its quality scale is revised and its reliability scale is much expanded. All the descriptive text is quotes from the article, but the HTML formatting is mine, and I have restated the algorithms.

Quality of the signal and its contents

What is the estimated distance to the source of the signal?

(4) Less than a light day (i.e. in the Solar System)
(3) Light-days to light-years (i.e. about as close as the nearest star)
(2) Light-years to tens of light-years
(1) Hundreds to thousands of light-years (in the Galaxy)
(0) Longer/unknown

What are the prospects for communication with the source of the signal?

(4) We are in the active two-way communication
(3) We could respond using the same medium/encoding as the signal within 20 years
(2) We can understand the signal or we have artefacts we can study
(0) No communication is taking place

Is the sender aware of humanity/its technology?

(2) Yes, certainly – the signal is intended for us, specifically
(1) Possibly, but there is a little or no evidence for this
(0) Almost certainly not (e.g. they are too far away)
(-1) Senders are apparently extinct

Reliability of the evidence

How real and amenable to study is the phenomenon?

Is there a significant uncertainty about whether the phenomenon occurred/occurs at all?

(6, skip the rest) Yes, there is a significant uncertainty
(7) No, something almost certainly happened

How amenable to study is the phenomenon?

(0) The phenomena has been observed exactly once (e.g. the Wow! signal).
(1) The phenomenon has been observed a small but plural number times, either as multiple targets showing similar phenomena, or a single target showing multiple similar events.
(2) The phenomenon has been confirmed to be real and repeated, for instance by multiple groups using a single instrument to observe the phenomenon or by an additional observation with a different instrument or from a different site.
(3) The phenomenon is observed routinely by different groups using different equipment.

Is the discoverer of the phenomenon the same person/group that predicted that such a phenomenon would indicate the pres- ence of alien intelligence?

(-1) The claimants predicted the phenomenon they have 'discovered'.
(0) The claimants have identified a new phenomenon, or one predicted by others.

How certain are we that the phenomenon is not instrumental?

Does the phenomenon look like a known instrumental or psychological effect?

(0, skip the rest) Yes (me: instrument artifacts like lens flares, subjective pattern-finding, ...) .
(7) No.

What chances do the instrument builders/experts in the method/observers of the phenomenon give that the signal is not instrumental?

(0) These experts have not weighed in at all.
(1) These experts give a ~90% chance that it is instrumental (so a ~10% it is real).
(2) These experts give even odds that it is instrumental.
(3) These experts give <10% chance that it is instrumental.

How certain are we that the phenomenon is not natural or anthropogenic?

Is there a good reason to think the phenomenon is a hoax?

(0, skip the rest) Yes.
(1) No.

How does a wide community of experts assess the probabilty that there are any known sources of natural or anthropogenic signal that could explain the phenomenon?

(0) A wide range of experts agree that the signal is clearly natural/anthropogenic, or said experts have not been consulted.
(1) It is consistent with a common phenomenon.
(3) It is consistent only with a rare or poorly understood phenomena.
(6) It is not consistent with any known natural or anthropogenic phenomena (but unknown natural/anthropogenic phenomena could still be the cause).
(8) Only extraterrestrial, artificial explanations make sense (i.e. those requiring non-human design and engineering, for instance).
(9) The phenomenon contains information content of clearly intelligent design (i.e. it contains a message; or is an obviously artificial and alien artefact available for close – perhaps robotic – inspection).

Scores

Quality	Score
Distance
Communication
Awareness
Total

Reality	Score
Uncertainty
Accessibility
Prediction
Total

Instrumental	Score
Resemblance
Experts
Total

Known	Score
Hoax
Experts
Total

Reliability	Score
Reality
Instrumental
Known
Total

Overall	Score
Quality
Reliability
Total