What Is an Intent Score? How Cloakroom Ranks Suspicious Congressional Trades

The STOCK Act produces thousands of trade disclosures every year. Most of them are boring — index fund rebalances, diversified mutual funds, routine sales to pay taxes. A small fraction are not.

The Intent Score is how Cloakroom separates the signal from the noise.

The Problem with Raw Disclosures

Every trade tracker shows you the same thing: name, ticker, buy/sell, amount range, date. That's it.

But a senator buying $50K of NVDA means completely different things depending on:

• Whether they sit on the House Technology Committee (oversight of semiconductor policy)
• Whether they co-sponsored an AI bill the same week
• Whether they filed the disclosure 3 days or 43 days after the trade
• Whether 4 other members made the same trade that week

None of that context appears in the raw filing. Cloakroom builds it in.

How the Score Is Calculated

Every trade is sent to Claude AI with a structured prompt that includes:

1. Committee assignments Does this member sit on a committee with direct oversight of the sector the trade is in? A senator on the Finance Committee selling bank stocks looks very different from one on Agriculture doing the same.

2. Legislation timing Did this member sponsor, co-sponsor, or vote on relevant legislation within 30 days of the trade? We cross-reference the trade date against congressional activity records.

3. Disclosure lag The longer the gap between trade date and disclosure date, the more suspicious the timing. A 3-day disclosure is routine. A 43-day disclosure on a high-committee-overlap trade raises flags.

4. Pattern context Is this member's first trade in this sector, or their 12th? Repeat trades in a specific sector from a committee-relevant member compound the score.

The AI synthesises these factors into a 0–100 score and writes a plain-English explanation.

Score Ranges and What They Mean

| Score | What It Suggests | |-------|-----------------| | 0–30 | Routine — likely diversification, no notable overlap | | 31–60 | Moderate — some committee proximity, watch for follow-ups | | 61–80 | Notable — clear sector overlap, worth tracking | | 81–100 | High intent — multiple overlapping signals, long disclosure lag |

A score of 91 doesn't mean the trade was illegal. It means the confluence of factors — committee seat, legislation timing, disclosure lag — is unusual enough to warrant attention.

A Real Example

Nancy Pelosi, BUY NVDA, $500K–$1M:

• Sits on the House Technology Committee (semiconductor oversight) ✓
• Trade occurred 4 days before co-sponsoring the AI Infrastructure Investment Act ✓
• Disclosure filed 16 days after the trade ✓
• Three other committee members bought NVDA in the same 7-day window ✓

Intent Score: 91

That's not an accusation. It's a flag. Four independent signals pointing in the same direction is information worth having.

What the Score Doesn't Tell You

The Intent Score is not:

• A claim of illegality
• Investment advice
• A guarantee the trade will perform

It's a ranking system for how unusual the timing of a trade looks given publicly available information. What you do with that ranking is up to you.

Accessing Intent Scores

Score numbers are visible on the free tier. The full AI reason (the plain-English explanation of why the score is what it is) requires a Starter plan or above.

The reason text is often more useful than the number — it tells you which factor is driving the score, so you can decide how much weight to put on it.