So there I was, on a random, uneventful Tuesday morning, taking a quiet spin through LinkedIn. I wasn’t looking for anything in particular. This was a classic “I have 5 minutes, let’s see what’s going on in my professional world’ type of scroll. You know the one. Overly self-congratulatory job promotion status updates? You betcha. Effusive praise for the very proud team who picked up one of the 4,237 ‘prestigious’ awards on offer at that evening’s ‘important’ industry event? Without doubt. Long-form opinion piece about the future of measurement in influencer marketing? Ding ding ding. It wasn’t until I was half-reading through the influencer marketing measurement piece that I began to realize… yep, this is giving me slop-vibes. Sure enough, upon taking the time to copy and paste the piece into a random AI-checker, my suspicions were confirmed. I remember thinking “Tricky devils. Trying to pull one over on me. Not today. Fair enough, no harm no foul.” 10 seconds later came the catalyst moment for me. Why was this “no harm, no foul”? This… this was a foul. It was a red card. Why was my initial reaction one of understanding? This “author”, a real-life person whom I professionally “knew”, was promoting sincerity in an insincere, inauthentic manner. So, I checked the effusive awards piece. Slop. Then the ‘can’t wait to be a part of the company family’ new job update. Slop. (I must also point out that I checked a fourth piece, too, which was authentic). It just hit me, right then and there – I’ve been totally duped, here. I’ve completely wasted my time. While the new job, award and, I hope, directional belief in the future of measurement in influencer marketing were real, the substance was not. I’d spotted the slop in the third post, but missed it in the first two. And I’d had to go out of my way to confirm this. Even the jitters kicked in – could I trust the AI software I’d used to check the content? Seems like I could, but I was checking it after it had been published, which I know has its flaws. There had to be a better way. My co-founders and I wanted to be able to able to prove the authenticity our own writing immediately, and for that verification to be clear and obvious to anyone so that when they saw it, they knew it was real and could read on with confidence. We wanted to be able to ensure that those people could fundamentally trust the verification, at the point of creation And we wanted to provide proof so that anyone could check how and why a post’s verification was secured. And so Turrii was born. I’m proud of our mission and what we’re trying to achieve. If you ever have any doubts, problems or concerns with our product – and hey, we’re just starting out – or if you’ve got suggestions on how we could make the product better or even kind words, don’t hesitate to shoot us a note (info@turrii.com). Only together can we stop the slop.
ID BDR72HCJ · Nov 9, 2026 · 9 views
Ready to get started?
Download the free plugin, verify your own writing and help rebuild a feed where real thought wins.
02 / How it works
Levels of evidence
Higher levels of app integration increase our technology's confidence that a human wrote the text.
Keystroke timing was captured by the Chrome extension as the author typed, then analyzed against human capability thresholds to verify a natural writing rhythm.
- Chrome extension keystroke capture
- In-platform composition verified
- Human-like typing analysis
Why this score
- The number
- 70 out of 100. Each level has its own band: this text is at the chrome extension level, which runs 63 to 79.
- Where the typing came from
- Captured in the browser, keystroke by keystroke, as the text was typed.
- What held it here
- Typing was recorded in the browser. Browser-only evidence tops out at 79; higher scores need the desktop app's hardware keystroke check.
- What would raise it
- Running the desktop app while typing adds a hardware keystroke check and can lift a text to the desktop app level (80 to 89).
Confidence
How confident is this verification?
Typing evidence powers the confidence score.
70/ 100
Notes
- Pasted content was detected. Pasted text cannot be verified as human-typed and lowers the overall confidence.
- Typing rhythm is consistent with human input.
The “Typing evidence” view on the letter above marks each part of the text by how it was written, and the play button replays the typing as it happened. Here is the same thing as totals.
- Typed 92% Typed key by key with a human rhythm.
- Pasted 7% Pasted in, so there is no typing to check.
- Not human 0% Typed, but the rhythm did not look human.
- Quoted 0% A quote the author marked with quote marks. Not counted either way.
The typing engine scores the timing of every recorded keystroke. It looks at the signals below together; no single one decides the verdict. The exact measurements stay private so the check is hard to game.
- Typing speed
- How fast the text was typed, overall and in short bursts. People speed up and slow down; a script tends not to.
- Gaps between keys
- The pauses from one key to the next. Fingers have a floor; replayed or injected text often does not.
- Rhythm
- How uneven and unpredictable the rhythm is. Real typing is bumpy; machine typing is suspiciously even.
- Key presses
- How long keys stay pressed and how the fingers travel between them, when the recorder sees both key down and key up.
- Thinking pauses
- The longer pauses people take to think between phrases.
- Edits and fixes
- Deleting and rewriting. People revise as they write; pasted or generated text usually arrives finished.
Taken together, these signals read as a person typing at a keyboard.
The server signed a hash of this exact text together with its tier and author. Anyone can check the signature against the public key below. If a single character of the text changed, the content hash would not match.
Record ID
f6eef54d-9ad4-432f-ad8c-b32a400cad7a
Author ID
ea382208-e2b5-40f5-a907-359093a32227
Content hash
ieE4xLfaFAN_Hs7WYlT5tq3BgMv3X3Opk125oW6xX8U
Signature
JhT3AjC96z5M4C2MSCxli-u7EQNn0zPvccbhxoIOgXTaXZDLx4EqWYckgYHL50jRrO3Ojm9-CUWyhVmQR5lUDg
Key ID
prod-ed25519-001
Algorithm
ed25519
Public key
jJa5XbW6SEMK-N98a2ikV_gEuV0xrJJUoSgw8e-h6ls
Version
3
Signed at
Nov 9, 2026, 11:47 PM UTC
Canonical payload
{"version":3,"id":"f6eef54d-9ad4-432f-ad8c-b32a400cad7a","author_id":"ea382208-e2b5-40f5-a907-359093a32227","tier":1,"verify_code":"BDR72HCJ","content_hash":"ieE4xLfaFAN_Hs7WYlT5tq3BgMv3X3Opk125oW6xX8U","key_id":"prod-ed25519-001","algorithm":"ed25519","created_at":"2026-11-09T23:47:11.134984Z","tier_code":"N1","author_identity_verified":false}Start your own
Ready to get started?
Download the free plugin, verify your own writing and help rebuild a feed where real thought wins.
Start now