Claimed Veridical Perception Scale (cvNDE)

For First-Person Text/Audio/Video NDE Accounts

Scale Overview and Rationale

The Claimed Veridical Perception Scale (cvNDE) is designed to evaluate the evidential strength of veridical perception claims within first-person Near-Death Experience accounts shared through audio or video formats (such as YouTube videos, podcasts, or recorded interviews).

Unlike the vNDE Scale, which requires external investigation and third-party verification by researchers, the cvNDE Scale:

Accepts the experiencer's account as presented (evaluating quality of claims, not investigating truth)
Measures evidential strength rather than verified accuracy
Assesses qualities inherent to the narrative that make veridical perception claims more or less compelling
Can be applied to any first-person account without requiring researcher access to witnesses or medical records

What Strengthens the Evidence for a Veridical Perception Claim?

A veridical perception claim carries greater evidential strength when:

The medical state should have precluded any perception
Ordinary sensory access to the information was physically impossible
The perceived details are specific rather than vague
The information could not have been known, guessed, or inferred
The experiencer actively sought to verify the perception
Perceptions that were verified carry more weight than unverified claims
The perception was reported before the experiencer could have learned it was accurate

Scale Criteria

Criterion 1: Medical State Severity During Perception

What was the reported medical/physical state during which the veridical perceptions occurred?

This criterion assesses how compromised brain function reportedly was during the experience. The more severe the medical crisis, the greater the evidential strength of any accurate perception, as conventional neuroscience would predict no perception should be possible.

Rating	Description	Examples
1	Normal or near-normal consciousness, or experiencer is uncertain of their medical state	"I'm not sure if I was fully under yet"; "I might have been drowsy"; no clear medical crisis described
2	Altered consciousness without complete unconsciousness	Sedation, fainting, oxygen deprivation effects, semi-conscious states, unclear depth of anesthesia
3	Deep unconsciousness reported	General anesthesia, coma, completely unresponsive state, reported by medical staff to have been unconscious
4	Extreme physiological crisis	Cardiac arrest (heart stopped), documented flatline (EEG or EKG), clinical death, resuscitation required, deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, prolonged lack of vital signs

Rating Guidance:

Listen for specific medical terminology (cardiac arrest, flatline, code blue, resuscitation)
Note whether the state was communicated by medical professionals or assumed by experiencer
"I was told I died for X minutes" = higher than "I think I was unconscious"
Claims of documented medical records mentioning the crisis increase rating

Criterion 2: Perceptual Access Impossibility

How physically impossible was ordinary sensory perception of the reported information?

This criterion evaluates whether the perceived information could have been obtained through normal sensory channels (hearing, peripheral vision, logical inference from sounds) given the experiencer's physical position and state.

Rating	Description	Examples
1	Perceptions within potential sensory range	Information from the immediate environment that could potentially be heard (conversations) or sensed through non-visual means; perceiving things from their body's physical perspective
2	Perceptions from an impossible vantage point but in the same location	Viewing themselves from above, seeing things behind them or occluded from their body's line of sight, but still within the same room
3	Perceptions in areas physically separated from the body	Different room, operating theater when body was in recovery, hallway conversations, covered eyes during surgery, perceiving things through walls/ceilings
4	Remote perceptions	Different building, different city, events happening miles away, perceiving events to relatives at home while in hospital, information from entirely separate locations

Rating Guidance:

Consider: "Could someone lying in that position potentially have sensed this?"
Auditory information in the same room rates lower than visual details from impossible angles
Operating room perceptions with confirmed eye closure/anesthesia rate higher
Remote viewing (e.g., seeing family member at home) = highest rating
Perceptions of information on TOP of objects (like a number on top of a cabinet) when viewing from above rate higher than eye-level perceptions

Criterion 3: Specificity and Precision of Perceptions

How detailed and specific are the reported veridical perceptions?

Vague impressions that could apply to many situations carry less evidential weight than precise, specific details that could be clearly confirmed or refuted.

Rating	Description	Examples
1	Vague or general impressions	"There were people around me"; "I saw doctors working"; "Someone was talking"; general atmosphere descriptions
2	Moderate detail with some specifics	"A woman with dark hair was on my left"; "Someone said something about my heart"; "There was some kind of commotion"
3	Specific verifiable details	Particular words or phrases quoted; specific actions described ("the doctor hit the cart"); specific but common characteristics ("nurse in blue scrubs said 'we're losing him'")
4	Highly precise, unique details	Exact numbers, specific names of people they didn't know, precise unusual details (plaid shoelaces, specific license plate, exact time, model number, unique identifier), unexpected or unusual events with specific characteristics

Rating Guidance:

Numbers, proper names, and exact quotes rate highest
Details that would be impossible to guess (specific numbers on hidden objects, exact words of conversations) = 4
"A doctor" = low; “My anesthesiologist” = medium, "Dr. Smith with the mustache" = high
Unusual/unexpected details rate higher than expected ones
Multiple specific details can elevate rating even if individually moderate

Criterion 4: Unpredictability of Perceived Information

Could the perceived information have been known beforehand, logically inferred, or reasonably guessed?

This criterion assesses whether the veridical perception represents information that would be surprising or impossible to know through normal means versus information that might be expected or inferred.

Rating	Description	Examples
1	Expected or easily inferred information	Knowing surgery involves doctors, operating room has equipment, family members are worried, predictable events during medical procedures
2	Information that could possibly be guessed with some probability	General appearance of medical staff, typical actions during resuscitation, common equipment configurations
3	Unlikely to be known or correctly guessed	Unexpected events (someone dropping something, unusual conversations), specific personnel not previously met, atypical occurrences, unusual clothing or accessories
4	Seemingly impossible to know	Hidden information (items on top of cabinets, in closed drawers), events involving strangers, numbers/codes never seen, events in remote locations unknown to experiencer, information about deceased individuals they couldn't have known

Rating Guidance:

Ask: "What are the odds someone could guess this correctly?"
Prior knowledge matters: Had they been in this hospital before? Did they know the staff?
Information about deceased relatives the experiencer didn't know had died = 4
Seeing standard equipment = low; seeing nurse's unusual tennis shoes hidden behind drape = high
Consider cultural/medical knowledge that might allow inference

Criterion 5: Self-Reported Verification Quality

Did the experiencer attempt to verify their perceptions, and how compelling is their verification account?

This criterion evaluates whether and how the experiencer claims to have checked whether their perceptions were accurate. Active verification attempts with specific methods and results carry greater evidential weight than vague claims of accuracy.

Rating	Description	Examples
1	No verification attempt mentioned, or unable to verify, or disconfirming evidence found	Experience described without any mention of checking accuracy; "I never found out if it was true"; never discussed perceptions with potential witnesses. “The doctor said that my perception wasn’t exactly what happened, but it was close.”
2	Vague or passive verification claim	"I found out later it was true"; "Someone told me I was right"; no specific method or source of verification described
3	Specific verification method with general confirmation	"I asked the nurse and she confirmed it"; "I later visited the location and it matched"; specific person or method identified but details of confirmation not elaborated
4	Detailed verification with specific confirmation	"I asked Dr. Smith about the plaid shoelaces and he turned white and showed them to me"; "I called the fire station and they confirmed truck 25 was at the scene"; "I described the conversation to my wife and she confirmed those exact words"; precise match between perception and verification explicitly described

Rating Guidance:

Method matters: Visiting locations, asking specific witnesses, checking records = higher
Response matters: Shocked reactions, specific confirmation of unlikely details = higher
Multiple verification sources elevate rating
Verification that occurs during the video (showing photos, having witnesses present) = highest consideration

Criterion 6: Verified Perception Weight

What is the ratio and quality of perceptions the experiencer claims were verified versus those that remain unverified?

This criterion captures the insight that one well-verified perception carries greater evidential weight than many unverified claims. Quality of verification matters more than quantity of claims.

Rating	Description	Examples
1	No claimed verifications; all perceptions are unverified claims	Multiple perceptions described but no mention of ever checking any of them; only claims without any verification narrative
2	At least one perception with claimed verification among several unverified	Many details claimed but only one was ever checked or confirmed; most claims remain unverified
3	Multiple perceptions with claimed verification (2-4) OR one perception with exceptional verification quality	Several specific details reportedly confirmed; or single perception that was verified with extraordinary specificity and witness confirmation
4	Multiple perceptions (5+) with specific verification claims OR complete or near-complete verification of all claims	Extensive verification effort across most or all claimed perceptions; systematic confirmation of multiple specific details

Rating Guidance:

One extraordinarily verified perception (specific, unexpected, multiply confirmed) can rate 3
Many vague verifications < fewer specific verifications
Weight quality over quantity
Consider: Did they try to verify everything they could, or only mention convenient confirmations?

Criterion 7: Temporal Precedence of Perception Report

When did the experiencer share the perception relative to when they learned it was accurate?

This is crucial for ruling out confabulation or unconscious memory revision. A perception that was documented or told to others BEFORE verification carries much greater evidential weight than one reported only after accuracy was discovered.

Rating	Description	Examples
1	No information about when perception was first reported	Account doesn't specify when they told anyone about the perception; timing of disclosure unclear
2	Perception reported after verification was possible or after they could have learned the information	"After I recovered, I told them what I'd seen"; ambiguous timing where they could have learned information before reporting
3	Perception reported to others before claimed verification	"As soon as I woke up, I told the nurse what I'd seen before anyone told me what happened"; "I wrote it down before I asked"; clear temporal precedence claimed but not documented
4	Perception documented before verification was possible	Told multiple witnesses immediately upon awakening; wrote down details before any opportunity for contamination; perception was so immediate it was part of their first words; witnesses present in video can confirm temporal precedence

Rating Guidance:

"I described it to my wife immediately when I woke up" = strong if wife is referenced as confirmable witness
"I remembered seeing this, and later found out it was true" = weaker (when did they "remember" it?)
Look for phrases like "the first thing I said when I woke up was..."
Medical staff surprised by accurate details they provided = evidence of temporal precedence
Written/recorded documentation > verbal claims

Scoring and Interpretation

Calculation

Total Score Range: 7-28 points

Sum all seven criterion ratings (each 1-4) for total score.

Evidential Strength Levels

Score Range	Evidential Strength Level	Interpretation
7-12	Low Evidential Strength	The veridical perception claims, as presented, lack compelling features. May be due to vague details, lack of verification attempts, information that could be inferred, or unclear medical circumstances.
13-17	Moderate Evidential Strength	The account contains some compelling elements but is limited by missing information, partial verification, or features that reduce the anomalous nature of the claims.
18-22	High Evidential Strength	The account contains multiple compelling features: severe medical crisis, specific details, verification attempts, and unpredictable information. Would be considered noteworthy for further investigation.
23-28	Exceptional Evidential Strength	The account presents highly compelling veridical perception claims with extreme medical crisis, specific and verified unpredictable details. If the claims are accurate, they represent a significant challenge to conventional understanding.

Critical Threshold Markers

Strong Account Indicators (any of these significantly elevates evidential strength):
- Criterion 1 ≥ 3 AND Criterion 5 ≥ 3 (severe medical crisis WITH specific verification)
- Criterion 4 = 4 (information seemingly impossible to know)
- Criterion 7 ≥ 3 (perception reported before verification possible)
- Criterion 2 = 4 (remote perceptions)
Limiting Factors (these cap overall evidential strength regardless of other scores):
- Criterion 5 = 1 (no verification attempt) limits maximum practical evidential strength
- Criterion 3 ≤ 2 (vague details) makes verification claims less meaningful
- Criterion 6 = 1 (no verified perceptions) undermines the veridical nature of the claims

Notes on Scale Limitations

The cvNDE Scale assesses evidential strength of claims as presented—it does not and cannot determine whether claims are actually true. Key limitations include:

No independent verification: All verification claims come from the experiencer
Potential for selective reporting: Experiencers may share verified perceptions and omit errors
Memory considerations: Time between experience and recording affects recall
Presentation context: Interview format, audience, and platform may influence presentation

A high cvNDE score indicates an account WORTH INVESTIGATING further with the vNDE Scale methodology, not proof of veridical perception.

Scale developed as a companion to the vNDE Scale (Greyson et al., 2025) for preliminary assessment of first-person accounts.