# LinkedIn algorithm confidence notes

## What is safe to state

- LinkedIn documents relevance signals tied to profile identity, content, and recent activity.
- LinkedIn documents that people search depends on the searcher context, completeness, skills, connections, and recognizable job titles.
- Clear positioning and topical consistency are durable bets.

## What to treat carefully

Public commentary around `360Brew` is not stable enough to present as settled production truth.

Use this stance:

- `360Brew` is useful as evidence of research direction.
- It is not safe to describe it as the confirmed live rulebook for all LinkedIn ranking behavior.
- Creator and vendor claims about full deployment should be labeled as disputed or secondary commentary.

## Practical inference allowed

It is reasonable to infer that these help:

- semantic consistency across headline, About, experience, and activity
- explicit role and skill naming
- recent, relevant engagement
- complete structured profile fields

It is not reasonable to claim:

- a specific live semantic score
- fixed feed weights
- deterministic posting-time formulas
- exact behavior tied to a branded algorithm narrative

## Writing rule

When the user asks why a LinkedIn tactic works, separate the answer into:

1. documented platform guidance
2. reasonable inference
3. disputed or uncertain commentary

Do not cite or imply official LinkedIn behavior unless the behavior is in supplied material, current official documentation, or this reference. Label secondary commentary, creator claims, and research-direction claims as uncertain.
