Provenance
Source reference, publisher, underlying reporting origin, publication time, collection time, and permitted use.
Capability 02 / Evidence workspace
When accounts differ,
follow the evidence
Four reports can tell one story without providing four independent accounts. In this fictional example, we follow the original claims, identify repetition, and keep the disagreement in view.
| Record / channel | Observed claim | Review state | Interpretation limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| E-01Official · Day 1, 09:00 | The terminal remains open. | Contradicted | An operator statement about general operations. It does not isolate contractor access. |
| E-02Local · Day 1, 11:30 | Contractor entry was interrupted. | Contradicted | A fictional local account refers to a specific gate and a narrower activity. |
| E-03Media · Day 1, 13:00 | The terminal remains open. | Repeated | This fictional item repeats E-01 and adds no independent observation. |
| E-04Physical · Day 2, 08:00 | Activity is visible in the wider terminal area. | Limited | The illustrative observation cannot establish who entered or whether every operation continued. |
4 fictional records shown.
The analyst's task
An open terminal
A closed gate Both can be true
The statement about an open terminal and the report of interrupted contractor access may describe different scopes. Establish the activity, location, and observation window before treating them as direct opposites.
An image of activity around a terminal cannot tell you whether a particular contractor got through a particular gate. The next piece of evidence needs to answer that narrower question.
Sample analytical judgment
Access remains unresolved
The available fictional record does not establish normal contractor access. Seek a dated observation of the access procedure, distinguish visitor categories, and retain the operator statement alongside the narrower local account.
Read the full reasoningA record you can inspect
What travels with the evidence
Scope
Event time, place precision, named actors, activity described, and the part of the claim actually observed.
Review history
Grouping rationale, independence check, contradictions, analyst interpretation, and the next review trigger.
Build the source register before the score
The connected event and corroboration workflow is development work. This public example shows the intended research discipline. It contains no source intake, private reporting, automated verification, or production monitoring.
A conversation with context
Bring us the question
that matters to you
Tell us your sector, the decision you face, and what you would need to see in a first briefing.
See how we can help you