Isolate claims
List numbers, dates, attributions, comparisons and promises that may influence a decision.
GUIDE / PROTOCOL
Evidence and source register
A strong claim must remain verifiable after publication and after reuse by search engines or AI.
Direct answer
What is an evidence register for?
It preserves the origin of each public fact, its context, validator and review date. It prevents hypotheses becoming certainties through repetition.
01 / Review method
Review method
Link sources
Keep URL or document, author, date, relevant passage and known reuse rights.
Qualify confidence
Separate primary source, independent corroboration, interpretation and unconfirmed information.
Schedule review
Assign an owner, deadline and visible correction or withdrawal process.
02 / Evidence to keep
Evidence to keep
Precise claim
One unambiguous statement per row.
Source and snapshot
Durable link, title, author, date and verifiable passage.
Status
Confirmed, corroborated, provisional, disputed or obsolete.
Decision
Publish, qualify, recheck or withdraw.
PRACTICAL CHECK
Before reaching a conclusion
A frequent misreading and the check that helps avoid it.
Premature conclusion
A cited source does not prove an entire sentence. Its date, scope and wording may support a narrower fact than the published claim.
Decisive check
Link each important claim to the exact passage, keep a dated copy and separately qualify the source, inference and remaining unknowns.
AFTER THE REVIEW
Decide from the evidence
A claim relies on one secondary source
Find the primary source and independent confirmation. If neither is available, qualify the claim as uncertain and state its scope.
A source was corrected after publication
Keep a record of the cited version, review dependent passages and publish an explicit correction if the conclusion changes.
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
Link each material claim to its exact source passage, date, saved copy and confidence level. A register home page does not let another reader repeat the check.
Next decision
Publish only the precision the evidence supports. If a source is absent or conflicting, keep the hypothesis open and state the missing check.
OSINT / Official references
When a claim must remain verifiable
Tie each claim to a dated record, a version and an explicit reading limit.
Insee · Séries chronologiques
Why start hereKeep the series code and method behind a public statistic.
Limit to rememberKeep the series code, unit, coverage, method and revisions; different scopes are not directly comparable.
Read source entryInfoCuria
Why start hereCite the case, decision text and relevant paragraphs.
Limit to rememberRead the ruling and its reasoning; a summary or press release cannot replace them.
Read source entryGallica · BnF
Why start hereIdentify the edition and page of a digitised historical document.
Limit to rememberA digital copy does not validate every statement in the document. Check provenance, OCR errors and resource-specific reuse terms; a BnF building photograph’s license does not apply to those documents.
Read source entryDetailed inspection cases
Typical situations for preparing a check. They do not describe completed assignments or actual observations.
The source moved
What to inspect
Open the old URL and inspect destination, version and date of the recovered document.
Decision and action
Update the consultation link without erasing the historical URL; a redirect does not prove identical content.
Record to retain
Both URLs, inspection date and differences between versions.
The screenshot omits context
What to inspect
Find the query, filters, date and passages surrounding the retained excerpt.
Decision and action
Add missing context; narrow the conclusion if original settings cannot be recovered.
Record to retain
Screenshot, reconstructed settings and remaining unknowns.
The supporting passage changes
What to inspect
Compare the retained passage with the new publication and check its scope.
Decision and action
Revise or suspend the claim if evidence no longer supports it.
Record to retain
Versions, difference, decision and recheck date.
Review before deciding
These questions complement the method. They help establish what is actually supported while retaining qualifications in the record.
Recoverable evidence chain
Can a reviewer recover the document, version and used passage from the claim? Are repetitions of the same document marked as dependent?
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- The note cites a homepage; the quoted claim has no located passage or retained version.
- Declared state
- Observed discrepancy
- Decision and next check
- Locate the record and passage before handover. A portal link is not enough to reproduce the check.
Retained qualifications
Does the conclusion retain contradictions, covered period and missing evidence? Reopen the record when a source is corrected or replaced.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- Two dated records give different addresses; the conclusion retains both and their periods.
- Declared state
- Verified within this scope
- Decision and next check
- The caveat is visible. Reopen if a correcting record establishes the change date.
Integrity and origin
Does the digest identify the retained copy? Check origin and quoted passage separately: equal bytes do not validate a claim.
Documentation consulted : NIST · Secure Hash Standard ·
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- Two copies share a checksum; the document producer has not been identified.
- Declared state
- Not checked
- Decision and next check
- Retain the copy-integrity finding without validating origin. Locate the original publication.
TOOLS / REGISTERS
Information to record
Use one row per precise claim. Link a document supporting several claims to several rows, retaining the relevant passage separately for each claim.
- Access date and time zone
- Exact URL
- Claim to verify
- Observed passage / value
- Independent source
- Limit / uncertainty
- Decision / next action
- Review owner
- Next review
03 / FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Is one source enough?
Sometimes for a fact directly reported by its author. Disputed or decisive claims require suitable cross-checking.
Must the whole register be public?
No. Shareable evidence may be published; confidential material remains in a controlled perimeter.
Is a screenshot enough evidence?
It preserves a state, but also record the URL, date, author or publisher, context and verification method.
How should conflicting sources be handled?
Keep both versions, date observations and explain the disagreement before reaching a conclusion.
When does evidence become stale?
When it no longer supports the current claim or when context, method or source has changed.
04 / Official references
Official references
Describe a context
DOCUMENTED REFERENCE
PAdES: four preservation levels, not four grades of truth
ETSI EN 319 142-1 V1.1.1 describes these PDF signature levels; European Commission DSS 6.5 documents augmentation. They distinguish material available for validation over time. A level name does not replace its validation result.
| Reference | Value or form | What it identifies |
|---|---|---|
| B-B | PAdES-BASELINE-B | Basic signature and attributes required by the profile. A signer-claimed time alone is not third-party trusted temporal evidence. |
| B-T | PAdES-BASELINE-T | Adds a trusted time indication establishing signature existence. Verify the token and its coverage rather than just the visible signature-box time. |
| B-LT | PAdES-BASELINE-LT | Incorporates long-term validation material, including certificates and revocation information. Presence does not remove the need to check validity and temporal relevance. |
| B-LTA | PAdES-BASELINE-LTA | Adds timestamps protecting validation material for continued use. Preservation may require further timestamps; it is not an unlimited one-off guarantee. |
Implication for the record
Retain detected format and level, validator and version, policy, validation time and detailed report. Legal qualification is a separate analysis. LTA in a filename proves neither the actual level nor successful validation.
Does adding LT or LTA mean the signer signed the text again?
Not necessarily. Augmentation adds validation or preservation material to an existing signature. Retain original and augmented files and validate signatures and revisions rather than counting two content approvals.
Primary documentation
- ETSI · EN 319 142-1 V1.1.1, baseline levels
- European Commission · DSS 6.5, signature classes and augmentation
Documentation consulted on .
DOCUMENTED REFERENCE
Quotation positions: count code points, not JavaScript units
Start and end offsets are reproducible only when the text and counting unit stay the same. TextPositionSelector counts Unicode code points in logical order, including for right-to-left text.
| Reference | Value or form | What it identifies |
|---|---|---|
| start / end | [5,10) | The first position is zero. Start is inclusive and end is exclusive: [5,10) extracts five code points. |
| Unicode / UTF-16 | 🧭 · 1 / 2 | In “🧭 A: alpha; B: alpha.”, the initial symbol occupies one code point but two UTF-16 units. The first alpha is [5,10) in code points and [6,11) in UTF-16. |
| grapheme | e + U+0301 | W3C recommends avoiding grapheme splits. A combining accent or emoji sequence can contain several code points; the tool flags boundaries using the browser’s Intl.Segmenter. |
| resource changes | offsets ≠ version | Inserting text before a quotation shifts offsets. Preserve the extraction and resource state, and reread the actual selected text rather than trusting numbers alone. |
Try text anchoring
Original example with no real document: 🧭 A: alpha; B: alpha. The two explorers are independent.
Nonempty text: at most 2,000 code points; quotation: 1–200; each context: at most 100. No spaces, markup or accents are removed. Text fields use LF line endings.
Offsets follow logical text order. Right-to-left display does not reverse indexes.
These tools calculate in your browser and transmit no text.
Selection calculated
Text code points : 21 · Text UTF-16 units : 22
Showing the first 100 matches; refine the context to shorten the list.
| Start | End | Selected passage | Grapheme boundaries |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 10 | alpha | Boundaries preserved |
Boundaries preserved
Selector representation, no file created
{"type":"TextPositionSelector","start":5,"end":10}Finding or rereading a passage validates neither the source nor the claim.
Implication for the record
Pasted text is assumed to be extracted already. Browser text fields normalize line endings to LF; no other normalization is added. Empty ranges are explicitly shown. This reader is not a full Web Annotation validator.
Why can a visually correct selection have incorrect offsets?
String.length and normal JavaScript indexes use UTF-16. Array.from splits code points, not graphemes. The correct unit depends on the contract; Web Annotation offsets cannot be used directly as JavaScript indexes.
Primary documentation
Documentation consulted on .
Related checks
- Archives: read the reference with its descriptive level
- RFC 3161 timestamps: identify what the token actually dates
- PDF/A: a preservation profile is not an authenticity certificate
- PROV provenance: connect version, process and responsibility
- BagIt: verify a file collection beyond a ZIP archive
- Citing a passage: separate selection from source state
- French National Archives: connect an item, its fonds and holding location
DEEPER READING / PRACTICE
Preserve evidence with its context of use
Documents are stored in a file, but their connection to the conclusions has been lost. A register makes it visible why a piece was collected and what it allows to establish.
Updated on .
Priority checks
Attribute an identifier, indicate origin, date, version and supported proposal. Separate the stored file, the researcher's notes and the changes that occur after consultation.
Interpretation pitfalls
A speaking file name is not enough to find the collection conditions. An identical hash demonstrates a content identity, not the authenticity of the document.
Working record to retain
The register includes reference, path or URL, context, verification status and use. Another person must be able to find the room and understand his place in reasoning.
PRACTICAL CASE / WORKED EXAMPLE
A piece is stored without any reason for collection.
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 file contains many correctly named files. Several months later, no one knows what proposals they supported or under what conditions they were obtained.
Suggested approach
Attribute identifiers and link the documents to the questions of the file. Information about origin, version and observation. Separate the notes written after collecting the content of the room.
Conclusion and next step
The register returns the role of each element. The documents unnecessary to reasoning remain identified as an abandoned context or track, rather than being presented as indistinctive evidence.
Questions for deeper practice
Should we keep an unused piece?
This can be useful in explaining a distant track or a contradiction. Its status and role must be clear so that it does not believe that it supports the final conclusion.
DETAILED WORKSHOP / APPLICATION
Keep evidence retrievable after research ends
01 / Prepare the necessary information
Collect files, references and collection notes. Choose an identification agreement and the fields useful to find the pieces and understand their role.
02 / Carry out the approach
Attribute an identificator, indicate source, version, date and supported proposal. Separate document, observation and comment. Check whether the routes or links lead to the right item.
03 / Examine an alternative situation
If a piece has been removed, keep its status and the useful reason. It may document a contradiction or a track without being part of the evidence of the conclusion.
04 / Decide on the next step
The register is used when someone can find a piece and explain its use. Ranking by file name alone is not enough for this traceability.
05 / Hand over the verification records
Transmit index, conventions and conservation limits. The version changes are linked to the old pieces and the conclusions that used them.
ANNOTATED WORKING DOCUMENT / REVIEW GRID
Index of parts with role and status of use
The index keeps the identification, origin, version and proposal supported. The researcher's notes remain separate from the pieces to explain the place of each element in the file.
On a small screen, scroll the grid horizontally to read all three columns.
| Observation | Supported interpretation | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| The room and its use are found. | The evidence can be reviewed with its collection context and its contribution. | Keep the references and check the version changes. |
| The file exists without any identified reason for use. | Storage is not enough to rebuild the reasoning. | Connect the room to a question or qualify it as a context. |
| A dismissed piece remains presented as support. | The register may give a higher evidence impression than the actual file. | Indicate his status and the reason for his withdrawal from reasoning. |
Reviewing the working document
The final verification verifies that each item can be found and understood without depending on the editor's memory. Provisional uses and replaced parts must remain visible in the history.
REPORTING / EXAMPLE WORDING
Presentation of results: Keep proof with its use context
Point to clarify
A preserved file must keep the reason for its presence in the file.
Before handing over
Relate file, source and use without depending on the name of the document.
Example of a qualified conclusion
The document supports the proposal described and can be found by its identifier. The contextual parts and distant tracks retain a distinct status.