Dialog, the private network cofounded by Peter Thiel, grades its event attendees on a hidden scale, ranking them by wealth and fame, tracking their relationships, and using algorithms to help decide who they should meet, who they should sit with, and who no longer belongs, WIRED has learned.

The records are part of a trove of internal data received by WIRED from a confidential source, containing the personal information of nearly 200 prominent people scheduled to attend the group's annual retreat this summer. The data includes home addresses, private phone numbers and email accounts, dates of birth, photos, and emergency contacts, as well as food allergies and the political leanings volunteered by some members.

The records are distinct from a list of people affiliated with Dialog that was left exposed on the organization’s website and has been circulating online since earlier this week—a looser directory that appears to include nonmembers, such as Maryland governor Wes Moore, a former event speaker, and other outside guests who passed through Dialog’s orbit, in some cases years ago.

Founded in 2006 by Thiel and data broker Auren Hoffman, Dialog is a private club that convenes politicians, investors, entrepreneurs, military leaders, executives, academics, and journalists for invitation-only, off-the-record retreats. According to a Dialog document shared by a past participant, it has “over 1,000 paying members,” and more than 2,500 people have attended its annual retreats.

The document, which describes Dialog as an “invite-only community,” distinguishes between two products: membership and retreats. The former allows members—the group calls them “dialogers”—to access private dinners “hosted in members’ homes and private spaces around the world,” as well as “member-led global treks,” concierge services, a private group chat, and more. Retreats convene groups of 200 or more people—who are not necessarily members—for three- to four-day meetings. This August, for example, members, speakers, and guests are scheduled to gather outside Dublin, Ireland, for two days of discussions on artificial intelligence, geopolitics, and modern warfare—from NATO’s future and battlefield tech to the war in Iran—led by current and former lawmakers, diplomats, and national security officials.

(Disclosure: A former editor in chief of WIRED, Nick Thompson—currently the CEO of The Atlantic—is among those in both the public list and unreleased records. He declined to say whether he is a Dialog member.)

Dialog assigns people grades before they join. Of the 192 dossiers examined by WIRED, 130 are tagged as members. The rest are prospects with files bearing markings like “First Time Dialoger” or “Warm.” Everyone—members and prospective invitees alike—is assigned a grade of A, B, or C. The “C” grade appears reserved for the most famous and influential; only one in seven received it. Most people—141 of 192—received a “B.” The final tier, “A,” appears primarily assigned to older, established members whom the graders consider less notable.

Actor Josh Brolin—who, according to the records, has never attended a Dialog retreat—is categorized as a VIP largely based on the strength of his fame: ”His portrayal of Thanos in the Avengers series and his involvement in high-grossing films like Avengers: Endgame, which grossed over $2.79 billion, contribute to his prominence,” reads one note, with staff further citing his Instagram following of over 3.4 million.

The economist Tyler Cowen, by contrast, was initially denied a VIP “C” rating after the group’s AI tool described him as “widely recognized within his field” but not a leader of “an organization that is a household name to the average person.” (Dialog staff overruled the AI tool, which was used to assemble dossiers on at least 26 people included on the group’s list.)

Brolin did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment. One of his representatives told The Hollywood Reporter that he wants “to know what the fuck he got himself into.” Cowen did not respond to a request for comment.

Leaked staff notes attached to around 50 dossiers provide additional insight into what the group’s scores and grades measure. Wealth is one of the most common justifications found in the data, with one investor summed up by the money he oversees—$30 billion in assets under management—while another is marked down with a two-word verdict: “Small AUM.” Fame is a close second. In one note, a staffer assigned a member a grade “so she doesn't get seated with grade Cs” indicating that they wanted to avoid this member sitting with VIP attendees.

Dialog’s algorithm consistently fixates on whether the “average person” would recognize someone. It repeatedly weighs whether people are “widely recognized” or sufficiently “prominent” and, in a handful of cases, measures them against “a Fortune 500 company or a top celebrity.” For example, Reihan Salam, the president of the Manhattan Institute, was given a “B” rating because, it said, “the Manhattan Institute may not be as widely recognized by the average person as some larger organizations.” Salam did not respond to a request for comment.

Dialog staff revisit and revise grades after every retreat—an internal process the records call a “post-retreat code review.”

Alongside a letter grade, most people also carry a separate "value-add" score of 1 to 4, averaged from ratings by several staff. Members can be disinvited from events with explanations ranging from "Value Add Too Low" to "Poor Culture Fit" to "Grade Fell Too Low." A separate "moderation tier" tracks who is most trusted to moderate discussions, run Dialog’s workshops, or hold “Soapbox” sessions.

The grades are used in part to determine what attendees are charged to attend Dialog events, which can extend into the tens of thousands of dollars. Bottom-grade attendees are placed on the full-price tier roughly 70 percent of the time, compared with about a quarter of those considered VIPs. Staff set prices by hand, one balking at raising a best-selling author’s fee “just because her boyfriend has $$.” A quantum-computing startup founder was flagged to be cut after one gathering: “Doesn't have significant following. [Value add] not high enough to keep.”

The records also define the makeup of the group itself. Women account for roughly a third of those graded, but hold only 18 percent of top marks.

The leak shows that Dialog also tracks invitees’ apparent political leanings. Members are urged to disclose their own, but staff make separate internal assessments, and the two do not always match. Eleven members were assigned labels despite disclosing nothing, and the self-descriptions of 15 others were overridden. The head of one of the world’s largest conservation groups described himself as left-leaning; Dialog’s staff placed him on the right.

In the data for August’s event, 165 people disclosed their politics: More than half identified with the left. Even so, those on the right were more than twice as likely to carry a “C.”

The leak also points to a built-in matchmaking system that pairs members for both networking and dating. (Roughly 10 percent of respondents opted into a singles pool.) More than three-quarters already have a list of algorithm-suggested matches, which staff appear to refine by hand. One note pairs two members because “you're both in New York and work in government.” Each introduction comes with a photo and a short bio shown to the other person.

Dialog also maintains a list of people who should never be paired. The database flags “do-not-pair” combinations for a variety of reasons. Some are spouses, others already professional associates. A former ambassador is flagged against being matched with the head of his family’s organization. Others carry no reason at all: A prominent tech founder and an author are simply flagged against each other. The largest group, though, is members barred from being matched with Dialog’s own staff and organizers.

“We have no ideological agenda,” reads the document shared with WIRED by a past participant. “Dialog is nonpartisan and nonpolitical. We want all participants to come away with a better understanding of the truth—but we don’t presume to know what the truth is. We simply believe that when we bring together open-minded people who are at the top of their fields, with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, they will learn new things.”