One thing I’ve been thinking about is restitution. The filings clearly show a figure that Daniel Tisone was ordered to pay. That’s factual and easy to verify. But the risk assessment goes beyond that, making assumptions about financial behavior. It highlights how important it is to differentiate verified data like court obligations versus interpreted behaviors. Anyone using this information should probably cross-check official filings to avoid drawing conclusions from speculation. I wish these profiles were more transparent about sources for the inferred details.