Original CryptoSignalsReview dataset research

Which Crypto Signal Provider Metadata Fields Appear Together?

Marginal coverage counts hide whether useful fields occur on the same record. This report publishes the seven observed metadata bundles while keeping collection completeness separate from verification.

Analysis by CryptoSignalsReview Evidence Desk of 3,200 candidate records frozen 2026-07-05. Published 2026-07-10. Source commit 5dcd30b2b1a0. Dataset release. No provider paid for inclusion or status.

Inspect the metadata intersections

No signup, payment, wallet connection, or credentials are required.

Observed patterns7

9 of 16 possible four-field patterns do not occur.

Key-only records1,870

58.4% contain only the explicit key among the four fields.

All four fields106

3.3% contain route, alias, subscriber observation, and explicit key.

Direct answer

Only 7 of the 16 possible present-or-blank combinations occur across direct route, alias, subscriber observation, and explicit dedupe key fields. 1,870 records contain only an explicit key among those four fields. 1,132 contain route, alias, and subscriber metadata but no explicit key. Just 106 contain all four, and 8 contain none. This is a map of source-pipeline bundles, not an evidence-readiness score: no bundle produces a CSR-verified provider or a CSR-reviewed result sheet.

Four binary fields and their limits

FieldPresent whenUseful forCannot establish
Direct routeAt least one Telegram, Discord, WhatsApp, or website URL field is populatedLocating a captured provider-specific destinationCurrent ownership, authorization, continuity, or safety
AliasAt least one stored alternative-name value existsRetrieval and entity-resolution reviewRebrand, affiliation, or common operator
Subscriber observationA finite nonnegative integer count is storedDescribing source-supplied audience metadataActive users, customers, trust, reach, or performance
Explicit keyThe source-derived dedupeKey field is populatedOpaque comparison and importer tracingVerified identity or an automatic merge decision

Comparison version route-alias-subscriber-explicit-key-crosstab-v1 evaluates each field independently on one unique CSR provider slug. Presence means the manifest contains a qualifying value. It does not test freshness, correctness, provenance strength, agreement with another source, or suitability for a user decision.

Seven observed metadata patterns

MaskDirect routeAliasSubscriberExplicit keyRecordsShareSource-family composition
0001BlankBlankBlankPresent1,87058.4%RealTelegram channel category: 1,870
1110PresentPresentPresentBlank1,13235.4%TGStat crypto group rating: 598; TGStat crypto category: 534
1111PresentPresentPresentPresent1063.3%Cornix supported group marketplace: 85; TGStat crypto category: 21
0100BlankPresentBlankBlank521.6%Manual provider seed: 40; Public WhatsApp source family: 12
1100PresentPresentBlankBlank260.8%Manual provider seed: 26
0000BlankBlankBlankBlank80.3%Manual provider seed: 8
0110BlankPresentPresentBlank60.2%Public Discord source family: 6

The mask order is direct route, alias, subscriber observation, explicit key. For example, 1110 means the first three fields are present and the explicit key is blank. The seven rows sum to 3,200. The other 9 logical combinations have zero records and are not silently converted into missing rows.

The bundle pattern follows the collection path

The largest pattern, 0001, contains all 1,870 RealTelegram records: explicit key present, other three fields blank. Pattern 1110 contains 1,132 TGStat rows with direct route, alias, and subscriber metadata but no explicit key. Pattern 1111 contains 106 rows: 85 Cornix and 21 TGStat-category rows.

The smaller patterns are equally diagnostic. All 26 route-plus-alias-only rows are manual seeds. The 6 alias-plus-subscriber rows are the Discord source family. Alias-only rows combine 40 manual and 12 WhatsApp records. The 8 all-blank rows are manual seeds. These exact alignments show importer design, not natural provider classes.

Pairwise and three-field intersections

IntersectionRecordsShare of inventoryNarrow interpretation
Direct route and alias1,26439.5%Every direct-route record also has an alias field in this snapshot.
Direct route and subscriber1,23838.7%Most route-bearing rows come from subscriber-supplying sources.
Direct route and explicit key1063.3%Only the all-four pattern bridges these fields.
Alias and subscriber1,24438.9%Every subscriber observation has an alias field.
Alias and explicit key1063.3%The same ${fmt(metadataBundles.recordsWithAllFour)} all-four rows create this overlap.
Subscriber and explicit key1063.3%The same all-four rows create this overlap.
Route, alias, and subscriber1,23838.7%Combination of the 1110 and 1111 patterns.

Intersections answer whether values coexist on one record. They do not answer whether the values agree, whether the route is official, whether the count is current, or whether the key correctly groups an entity. A large intersection can be entirely explained by one importer.

Narrative dossiers sit outside the route and key bundles

Dossier cross-checkRecordsBoundary
Four-field editorial dossier present18Public footprint, offer style, proof focus, and claim posture are all populated.
Dossier with direct route0No dossier row has a populated direct-route field in this snapshot.
Dossier with alias18Every dossier row has at least one alias.
Dossier with subscriber observation6Only the six Discord dossier rows have counts.
Dossier with explicit key0No dossier row has an explicit source key.
Dossier with search terms18Every dossier row has editorial query terms.
Dossier with quality note1One dossier row has a correction or quarantine note.

This disconnect is another warning against a single completeness score. Narrative research, identity routing, audience metadata, and source keys were collected through different workflows. Adding their presence flags together would reward importer breadth without measuring evidence quality.

Workflow status by pattern

MaskRecordsListed for reviewQuarantinedWhat status still does not prove
00011,8701,476394Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved.
11101,132853279Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved.
11111061024Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved.
010052493Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved.
110026233Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved.
0000880Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved.
0110660Identity, complete performance, execution, commercial terms, and provider suitability remain unresolved.

The listed-for-review and quarantined columns sum to each pattern’s record count. Across the entire inventory, CSR-verified records remain 0 and CSR-reviewed result sheets remain 0. Field co-occurrence changes neither status.

How to use the cross-tab without inventing a score

  1. Identify the record’s actual pattern; do not impute blanks from its source family.
  2. Open the underlying values and preserve their source and snapshot date.
  3. Resolve the direct route independently before relying on aliases or payment instructions.
  4. Treat the subscriber count as an observed catalog value, not an audience-quality signal.
  5. Use the explicit key only as a review join; inspect names, routes, operators, products, and dates before merging.
  6. Request the missing identity, archive, execution, and terms evidence required for the decision.

A citation-safe aggregate statement is: “Seven route/alias/subscriber/key presence patterns occur in CSR’s frozen 3,200-record inventory.” Keep the inventory, field order, date, and non-verification boundary attached. Do not turn the 106 all-four rows into a verified-provider count.

Dataset boundary

This is a census of records in the CryptoSignalsReview candidate inventory at snapshot 2026-07-05, not a representative survey of every crypto signal provider or every messaging channel. Directory inclusion is discovery evidence only. Missing fields stay missing, platform labels can overlap, and no count proves provider quality, legality, profitability, or safety.

Frozen source: 5dcd30b2b1a0da9bacbaeec08244190dae19a49f. Unit: one unique CSR provider slug. Position: coverage is not endorsement.

Official context sources

These sources explain why identity, disclosure, complete performance evidence, and resistance to urgency matter. They do not validate any record in the CSR dataset.

Continue the transparency research