Trace the origin
Separate author, host, republisher and person making a capture. Find the earliest accessible publication and note changed or removed versions.
GUIDE / PROTOCOL
Qualify an open source before using it
Publicly found information is not automatically independent, recent or accurate.
Direct answer
Can an open source support a decision?
Start with a precise claim. Identify who produced the information, who published it, when it was observed and what the document actually establishes. Seek independent corroboration and record what remains unknown before concluding.
01 / Review method
Review method
Bound the claim
Read the complete passage, date, geographic scope and production conditions. A primary source may know a fact while having an interest in its interpretation.
Cross-check without circularity
Find an observation from a different collection process. Three articles repeating one press release are not three confirmations.
Assign confidence
Separate direct observation, partial corroboration and hypothesis. State what would change the conclusion and when to revisit it.
MEASUREMENT WORKSHOP
Six documents do not establish six confirmations
A release repeated by three sites and a register copied by a directory produce six documents but only two provenance chains. Group copies before counting independent confirmations.
Fictional example · no measurement of this site or a client
| Indicator | Calculation or threshold | What the result establishes |
|---|---|---|
| Documents | 6 | Six pages, files or records have been collected. |
| Provenance chains | 2 | Manual grouping identifies only two chains behind the documents. |
| Declared independent chains | 1 | Only one chain is declared independent: corroboration between two independent chains is not established. |
From observation to decision
Name the claim
Break a sentence into testable facts. Two documents may confirm different elements.
Trace the origin
Follow citations, producers and datasets; map repetitions instead of counting domains.
Explain independence
Describe how each chain obtained the information. Distinct origins can still share one initial statement.
An access failure is not an empty result
Twelve queries are documented. Seven return documents, three complete with no result and two time out. The binary criterion is at least one document for each query.
| Observed unit | Fictional data |
|---|---|
| Documents / empty results / unknowns | 7 + 3 + 2 = 12 |
| Share with a document among readable results | 7 / 10 = 70 % |
| Bounds across 12 queries | 7 / 12 ≈ 58.33 % ; 9 / 12 = 75 % |
Can five searches be described as having no result?
No: three searches are empty within scope and two are unknown. 7/10 describes interpretable queries; across all 12, the share with a document can range from 7/12 to 9/12. It does not measure document quality.
References and method
02 / Evidence to keep
Evidence to keep
Provenance record
URL, publisher, stated author, publication date, access date and a retained copy where appropriate.
Relevant passage
Short excerpt, surrounding context, question addressed and what it cannot show.
Reuse chain
Earliest source found, dependent repetitions and genuinely independent sources.
Bounded conclusion
Fact, inference, uncertainty, confidence, owner and review date.
PRACTICAL CHECK
Before reaching a conclusion
A frequent misreading and the check that helps avoid it.
Premature conclusion
An institutional site may reliably report its own register without confirming facts outside its mandate. Official status does not make every inference official.
Decisive check
Describe who produces the data, why, how often it updates and what it covers. Compare the conclusion with an independent source suited to the fact in question.
AFTER THE REVIEW
Decide from the evidence
Three outlets repeat one press release
Count one origin and three repetitions. Find an independent document or observation before raising confidence.
The source page changed after citation
Keep both dated states, compare the relevant passage and revise the conclusion if its meaning changed.
Decision and review trail
Decision and review trail
What the check must help decide and what to retain so the choice can be reviewed.
Sufficient evidence
Identify creator, primary document, period, coverage, method and contradictions. Two copies of one press release are not independent confirmation.
Next decision
Classify the result as fact, statement, clue or hypothesis. Search further only when it can change a stated decision.
OSINT / Official references
When qualifying a source
Start with the record closest to the fact, then test publication type and preservation.
Annuaire des Entreprises
Why start hereFind a French entity identifier and follow the original register.
Limit to rememberThis is an aggregator: check dates and the original register before drawing conclusions.
Read source entryCompanies House
Why start hereRead a UK filing history instead of citing a search snippet.
Limit to rememberCompanies House states that it does not check the accuracy of filed information.
Read source entryWayback Machine
Why start hereCompare a page with a dated capture when wording changes.
Limit to rememberA capture can be incomplete or combine resources from different dates. Archiving does not validate page claims; absence from replay does not automatically mean an element did not exist at the time.
Read source entryDetailed inspection cases
Typical situations for preparing a check. They do not describe completed assignments or actual observations.
Several sites repeat the same publication
What to inspect
Trace attributions and compare passages, dates and original links. Identify the initial issuer and any additional checks rather than merely counting domains.
Decision and action
Group republications into one provenance chain. Describe convergence as independent only when distinct evidence supports that assessment.
Record to retain
Keep URLs, identified issuer, repeated passages and documentary differences specific to each publication.
An actor’s statement becomes general confirmation
What to inspect
Read who is speaking, about which scope and on what date. Distinguish what the statement establishes about its author’s position from what it claims about external facts.
Decision and action
Attribute the statement explicitly. Seek independent evidence for the external conclusion, or retain a limited formulation when that evidence is missing.
Record to retain
Keep the contextualised quotation, issuer identity, checked proposition and status of the confirmations sought.
Two sources copy the same origin
What to inspect
Trace producer and original publication behind each reuse.
Decision and action
Do not count copies as independent confirmations.
Record to retain
Provenance chain, dates and identified shared origin.
Review before deciding
These questions complement the method. They help establish what is actually supported while retaining qualifications in the record.
Document scope
Are operator, jurisdiction, period, version and exclusions identified? An empty search must retain its query and filters before interpretation.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- A search returns zero results; its query and filters were not retained.
- Declared state
- Not checked
- Decision and next check
- The scope of absence remains unknown. Repeat a documented search before interpreting the empty result.
Examined independence
Do confirmations rely on distinct documents or the same repeated report? Retain their common origin and narrow the conclusion when corroboration is missing.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- Three portals reproduce one dispatch and are presented as three independent confirmations.
- Declared state
- Observed discrepancy
- Decision and next check
- Link reproductions to their shared origin. Find an independent record or narrow the conclusion.
Identified transformations
Is each transcription, translation or extraction linked to its original? Read the source passage before judging the derivative’s fidelity.
Documentation consulted : W3C · PROV Overview ·
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- The translation cites its source version and passage; numbers and caveats were checked against the original.
- Declared state
- Verified within this scope
- Decision and next check
- Fidelity of this passage is documented without validating the whole document. Recheck if the source version changes.
TOOLS / REGISTERS
Information to record
Trace repetitions back to the original producer. Two pages copying the same document are not two independent confirmations; record the provenance chain.
- Access date and time zone
- Exact URL
- Claim to verify
- Producer / publisher
- Observed passage / value
- Independent source
- Limit / uncertainty
- Decision / next action
- Review owner
- Next review
03 / FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Is an official source enough?
It can establish what an institution says or publishes; a disputed claim may need more evidence.
Is a screenshot a primary source?
It shows a captured state subject to origin and integrity; look for the original or another trace.
What if sources conflict?
Keep versions, dates and scopes. Describe the disagreement before deciding.
When should information be set aside?
When provenance, date or context cannot support the intended decision.
04 / Official references
Official references
Describe a context
Related checks
- Archives: read the reference with its descriptive level
- C2PA: validate provenance without certifying the scene
- IPv4: identify special-purpose space before attributing ownership
- French National Archives: connect an item, its fonds and holding location
- A resolving reference may have been corrected
- Corroboration: distinguish documents from origins
DEEPER READING / PRACTICE
Assess a source against the question
A source may be reputable without directly documenting the fact being sought. Its usefulness depends on access to the information, the method used and the scope it covers.
Updated on .
Priority checks
Examine the author or organisation, date, data origin and proximity to the event. Identify reused material, unsourced statements and stated limitations.
Interpretation pitfalls
A publisher’s general reputation does not turn all its publications into primary sources. A source can be suitable for one question and insufficient for another.
Working record to retain
The qualification sheet combines source, question, useful elements, origin and reserves. It indicates the necessary summaries before making a conclusion.
EXAMPLE / READING THE NUMBERS
Count origins rather than repetitions
Fictional data illustrating the method; not client results or measurements of this website.
| Observation | Count | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Articles consulted | 6 | 6 publications identified. |
| Articles repeating one release | 5 | 5 repetitions: one origin. |
| Other documentary origin | 1 | 1 publication based on a distinct record. |
Show the interpretation limit
What these numbers do not prove
Six articles may represent only two origins. Two origins alone establish neither independence nor the truth of every claim: check their records and methods.
PRACTICAL CASE / WORKED EXAMPLE
A competent source receives unverified information
The example below is pedagogical. It shows how to move from a document to a qualified proposal, preserving the context, the contradictory elements and the information that the research does not yet allow to establish.
Example context
A recognized publisher publishes data from a third party. The file attributes the quality of primary source to the publisher without examining the origin of that figure.
Suggested approach
Search the initial reference, method and scope. Distinguish the editorial responsibility from direct access to the fact. Compare the figure with its original presentation.
Conclusion and next step
The list describes the role of each source for this question. The publisher’s reputation remains a context element and does not replace the data review.
Questions for deeper practice
Can one source have several roles?
and yes. It can produce some information, comment on others, and retrieve an external document. The qualification must refer to the passage used rather than a general label applied to the whole.
DETAILED WORKSHOP / APPLICATION
Assess how a passage supports the fact being checked
01 / Prepare the necessary information
Choose the question and the passage under consideration. Collect the author, organisation, date, method and references needed to identify the information’s origin.
02 / Carry out the approach
Examine whether the source produces, reports or comments the fact. Search for primary parts and repetitions. Describe the interests, competences and limits relevant for this specific proposal.
03 / Examine an alternative situation
If the document blends production and recovery, qualify the passages separately. A general reputation does not give the same status to all published information.
04 / Decide on the next step
The source can be used when its contribution and reserves are explicit. The necessary summaries are listed before drawing a broader conclusion.
05 / Hand over the verification records
Transmit a pass, origin, role and limit. It allows to discuss the value of the document for the issue without reducing the analysis to an abstract reliability note.
ANNOTATED WORKING DOCUMENT / REVIEW GRID
A source list focused on the proposal studied
The file describes the origin of information, proximity to the fact, method and limits. It qualifies the passage used rather than giving a unique status to the entire publication.
On a small screen, scroll the grid horizontally to read all three columns.
| Observation | Supported interpretation | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| The source directly produces the useful information. | Its contribution can be examined with its method and scope. | Keep the definitions and check the important reservations. |
| The source takes a number of a third. | The primary role may belong to another document. | Find out the origin and compare the recovery to its initial presentation. |
| The passage answered only a part of the question. | The overall quality of the source does not fill this gap. | Limit its use and look for a supplementary piece. |
Reviewing the working document
The final verification asks how the source knows the fact and what its method allows to establish. The publisher’s competences or reputation illuminate the context without replacing this review.
REPORTING / EXAMPLE WORDING
Presentation of results: Qualify the source for the question asked
Point to clarify
The status of the source must be assessed for the passage used.
Before handing over
Check how the source knows the fact and what supplements are needed.
Example of a qualified conclusion
The publication provides information according to the origin and method indicated. Its repetitions and elements outside its scope are qualified separately.