Score 0–20 Statement explicitly promotes "automatic, expanded access to compensation" OR uses emotional language/criticism to emphasize urgency or threats aiming to sway views towards expanded compensation.
Score 21–40 Proposal subtly, discreetly, or indirectly favors "automatic, expanded access to compensation" without relying on emotional language.
Score 41–60 Statements that are roughly neutral, whose bias between automatic, expanded access to compensation and conditional compensation based on case-specific factors is roughly insignificant.
Score 61-80 Proposal subtly, discreetly, or indirectly favours "conditional compensation based on case-specific factors" without using emotional language.
Score 81-100 Proposal explicitly promotes "conditional compensation based on case-specific factors" OR uses emotional language/criticism to emphasize urgency or threat to sway views in this direction.