How Lithuanian companies are assessed

• No paid improvements. The score is calculated in the same way for every company; no company can improve it by paying.
• Public data only. All inputs come from state registers and filed financial statements.
• Missing data is not a penalty in itself. A signal without data is left out; it is never replaced by a zero.
• Coverage correction. A score built on few signals is pulled towards the neutral midpoint, so a high score requires broad, verified coverage.
• Terminal states cap the score. Registered insolvency does not merely vote alongside the other signals; it sets a ceiling.
• Verdict floor. Below 5 computable signals no score is shown; the registry shows “Insufficient data”.
• Open formulas. The formulas match the production algorithm and are published under the MIT licence.
• Mentions are separate. The number and tone of media mentions, customer reviews, TOP list history and any purchased package do not change the score. Mentions and reviews can be read on the company profile as separate information.

Each axis is one dimension of a business. The published weights sum to exactly 100%. Transparency carries the largest weight because it rests on five signals drawn from state registers.

Each signal is an independent module that returns a score from 0 to 10, or no result when its data is missing. Weights are the shares applied when all 13 signals are available.

The full formula of every signal is published, in Lithuanian, on the algorithms page and in the reference implementation.

1. Each signal is computed from the company's data. Signals without sufficient data return no result.
2. The weights of the signals that did return a result are rescaled proportionally so that they sum to 100%.
3. The weighted average of those signal scores is taken.
4. The coverage correction is applied (below).
5. If insolvency is registered, the cap is applied (below).
6. The result is rounded to one decimal place.
7. If fewer than 5 signals were computable, no score or band is published.

Axis scores are the weighted averages of the signals within each axis.

If a company has only some of the 13 signals and the missing ones happen to be the adverse ones (tax arrears, failure to file, bankruptcy), an uncorrected score would be inflated purely by the absence of scrutiny. Each missing signal therefore counts as a neutral pseudo-observation of half weight, with a prior value of 5.0:

score = (average × n + 5.0 × 0.5 × missing) / (n + 0.5 × missing)

n        number of computable signals
missing  13 − n

Example: an average of 8.0 across 9 of 13 signals gives a published score of 7.5; with full coverage the same average stays at 8.0. The correction pulls towards 5.0 from either side, so a low score on thin evidence also moves towards the midpoint. Only the overall score is corrected; signal and axis scores are shown as measured.

A weighted average would let many healthy historical signals outvote one catastrophic state. EBRS therefore treats registered insolvency as a ceiling, applied after the coverage correction:

• Bankruptcy: at most 2.9. Applies to an active bankruptcy (including intentional bankruptcy) recorded by AVNT, and to a register status of bankruptcy, liquidation or deregistration.
• Restructuring: at most 4.9. Applies to a registered or AVNT-recorded restructuring that has not been completed.

A cap is always stated next to the score, never applied silently. A restructuring closes only on an explicit completion date; a terminated case is not presumed to be a successful recovery. A documented correction recorded by the operator takes precedence over older feed data, but a later dated insolvency event in a register still takes effect.

When fewer than 5 of the 13 signals can be calculated, the registry shows no number and no band. It shows “Insufficient data” (in Lithuanian, “Nepakanka duomenų”). A verdict built on less than a third of the evidence base is not a verdict.

Next to the score the registry shows a confidence percentage (0-100%): the weighted average of the signals' own confidence multiplied by coverage, the share of the 13 signals that could be calculated. A low confidence means the score may change as more data arrives.

The registry as a whole collects much more data than EBRS uses. The score draws on 8 source groups (groups, not eight separate institutions):

• Centre of Registers: annual financial statements
• Centre of Registers: registration, legal status and governing bodies
• Centre of Registers: lists of non-filers, late filers and missing auditor’s reports
• SODRA: average salaries and social-insurance debts
• VMI: tax arrears
• VPT: public procurement
• JADIS: declared ownership
• AVNT: bankruptcy and restructuring proceedings

Search results, media mentions, ratings and TOP membership are not scoring inputs.

Every stored score carries the algorithm version that produced it; the current version is v7.0.0. Before each version change, and weekly in any case, the existing scores are copied to an append-only archive. Archived records are never edited, so what the registry said about a company on a given date can always be checked. Scores produced by different versions are not directly comparable.

Version history

1. v7.0.0 (2026-09-25), current

   • 13 signals, 4 axes. market_presence and community_trust removed; mentions, their sentiment, ratings and TOP history have no effect on the score.
   • Every remaining base weight divided by 0.86. The ratios between the other signals stayed the same.
   • Coverage denominator: 13. Fewer than 5 computable signals means that no verdict is published. The insolvency caps were kept.
   • The public algorithm aligned with the production code, including the current SODRA debt, the choice of profit data and the date checks on insolvency states.
   • Scores of the previous version are kept. A difference between methodology versions is not a change in reputation.

2. v6.0.0 (2026-07-17)

   • Terminal-state caps: active bankruptcy (including intentional bankruptcy) caps the overall score at 2.9 ("Critical"), restructuring at 4.9 ("High"). The cap is applied after the coverage correction and always declared through the capApplied field: registered insolvency caps the score instead of voting alongside the historical signals.
   • The published weights add up to exactly 100% (previously 96% with a silent renormalisation): legal standing 7%→8%, tax discipline 5%→6%, growth trajectory 4%→5%, profitability trend 4%→5%. Axes: Continuity 16, Financial discipline 24, Market reliability 14, Resilience 14, Transparency 32.
   • Ownership transparency signal rewritten: it assesses the completeness of the JADIS declaration and the traceability of beneficiaries (0 participants = 3, natural persons only = 9, mixed structure = 8, legal entities only = 7); the owners’ nationality no longer affects the score.
   • Verdict floor: below 5 computable signals out of 15 the category is not published and "Insufficient data" is shown instead (MIN_SIGNALS_FOR_VERDICT = 5).
   • Score archive: before every recalculation, and on a weekly schedule, the scores are archived in the append-only ebrs_score_vintages archive, so history is checked rather than rewritten. All registry companies were recalculated with the v6.0 algorithm.

3. v5.3 (2026-06-12)

   • Coverage correction (coverage shrinkage): the final score is regressed towards a neutral prior of 5.0 in proportion to the number of missing signals (a pseudo-observation of weight 0.5 each). This corrected a survivorship bias that made the scores of thinly researched companies artificially high.
   • Input guard: impossible year rows (before 1990 or in the future) are removed; NaN, infinite and negative financial values are replaced with null before they reach the signals.
   • All registry companies recalculated with the v5.3 algorithm; the individual signal and axis scores did not change.

4. v5.2 (2026-04-03)

   • financial_strength: revenue/margin weights changed from 0.50/0.50 to 0.35/0.65, so profitability matters more than scale.
   • growth_trajectory: the consistency formula changed from a coefficient-of-variation formula to a direction-based one.
   • tax_discipline: changed from a stepped formula to a continuous log10 scale; the tax-growth bonus removed (cumulative year-to-date VMI data).
   • resilience: the stability formula changed from the coefficient of variation to a mix of direction ratio and standard deviation (0.6/0.4).
   • workforce_health: headcount stability now uses the direction ratio instead of the standard deviation.
   • governance_quality: structure weights 3+3+2+1 → 6+2+1.5+0.5, overall weights 0.70/0.30 → 0.60/0.40, a log2 formula for tenure.
   • procurement_integrity: participation frequency changed from a stepped formula to a log2 formula.
   • reporting_compliance: late filers 5→4, non-filer tiers changed (0/2/4/6/7).
   • community_trust: capped at 7 when there are no ratings (previously uncapped).

5. v5.1 (2026-03-16)

   • Continuity axis reduced (21% → 15%): the TOP list was removed from continuity_capital, because a platform subscription must not affect the objective assessment of continuity.
   • Weight of the TOP list within the community_trust signal reduced (50% → 30%); user ratings dominate (70%).
   • The freed 6% moved to the Transparency axis (state data): public procurement 7%→9%, reporting 8%→10%, governance 5%→6%, ownership 4%→5%.
   • Transparency axis strengthened (26% → 32%), as the most objective basis of the assessment.

6. v5.0 (2026-03-15)

   • 6 new signals from data.gov.lt (VPT, VMI, RC JAR, JADIS).
   • Transparency became the heaviest axis (26%), based on state data.
   • The old transparency signal demoted (20% → 2%); the assessment of activation removed.
   • Financial strength extended with VMI penalties.
   • Continuity capital uses the RC JAR registration date.
   • In total: 9 → 15 signals.

7. v4.0 (2026-03-01)

   • The EBRS five-axis model (Continuity, Financial discipline, Market reliability, Resilience, Transparency).
   • 9 signals with percentile-based scoring.
   • Bayesian smoothing of ratings.
   • A sigmoid function for scoring growth.

Every formula, null condition and confidence rule: algorithms and formulas. Further reading: what an EBRS score means and about the registry.

• About the operatorWho runs the registry, how to reach us and why the score cannot be bought.
• Corrections processHow to report an error in a company profile and what happens next.
• Data statusWhen each data source was last updated, checked against its schedule.
• Privacy policy (summary)How personal data are handled. An informative English summary; the Lithuanian text prevails.
• Terms of use (summary)The rules for using the registry. An informative English summary; the Lithuanian text prevails.
• Algorithms and version historyEvery EBRS formula, null condition and confidence rule, and every methodology version.