METHOD, IN THE OPEN
Threshold distances, pace projections, strike expiry dates, and the appeal/reapply clocks are arithmetic on YouTube's published numbers: 1,000 subscribers; 4,000 watch hours or 10 million Shorts views today; 8,000 hours or 20 million Shorts views from February 1, 2027; appeal within 21 days; reapply after 30 days (first rejection) or 90 days (repeat). No judgment lives in this layer.
The reused/inauthentic score weighs your format, your content sources, and your transformation signals against the written policy. Every fix it returns carries the policy line it answers, quoted from YouTube's monetization policies — because this niche is full of invented rules ("70% original" exists nowhere in the policy) and the antidote is quotation. The weights are judgment calls, disclosed as such, and they are recalibrated against Layer 3.
The case library records real outcomes with sources and dates: the gaming channel approved on a process-evidence appeal, the 993K-view channel rejected, the AI story channel removed nine days after acceptance. Patterns that recur in documented outcomes weigh more in the score than patterns that only exist in blog folklore.
It never predicts an application outcome — in either direction. YouTube's reviewers decide, sometimes disagreeing with each other, and they do not explain individual decisions. Anyone selling certainty about that decision is selling something else. What we sell is the math, the policy in plain language, and the documented pattern record — the three things a beginner can actually act on.