Claim Review Methodology

The machine hates a careful claim.

A claim review is not a vibe check. It is a public method for separating documents, attribution, evidence, uncertainty, harm, and corrections.

Labels

Confidence taxonomy.

Use the narrowest label the evidence can bear. Do not upgrade a claim because it is emotionally useful.

Documented

Supported by primary documents or direct evidence.

Strongly Supported

Multiple reliable sources support it, but a primary record may still be incomplete.

Plausible but Incomplete

Fits known facts but needs more records, response, or context.

Contested

Serious evidence or interpretation conflicts remain.

Unsupported

No adequate evidence has been found.

False / Corrected

The archive has corrected or rejected the claim.

Needs Review

Queued for source review before publication or classification.

Template.

  • Claim: who made it, where, when, and in what exact form.
  • Type: official claim, factual claim, symbolic claim, rumor, or interpretation.
  • Evidence: primary sources, direct records, filings, images, transcripts, and dates.
  • Counter-evidence: strongest fair disagreement or missing record.
  • What remains true: the narrowest careful conclusion.
  • Harm review: who could be wrongly targeted, exposed, or chilled.
  • Lawful next steps: read, request records, attend a hearing, correct, or consult counsel.

> accept: public documents / fair context / correction route

> hold: thin source / private allegation / high legal risk

> reject: threats / doxxing / target lists / hate