Evidence & Verification Standards¶

How we determine what's true, document confidence levels, and handle contradictions.

Core Principle: Evidence First¶

We reject: - Authority claims ("trust me because I say so") - Social proof ("everyone knows this") - Tradition ("we've always done it this way") - Emotion ("I feel like this is true")

We require: - Source (where did this come from?) - Verification (how do we know it's true?) - Confidence (how confident are we?) - Next step (what would increase confidence?)

Verification Levels¶

OBSERVED ✅¶

Direct evidence that can be independently checked.

Examples: - "MCP server is running on localhost:3000" — We just tested it - "Git repository has 32 commits" — We counted them - "RAOS-007.md exists" — We read it

Confidence: HIGH
Trust: Can rely on for decisions
Lifespan: Until environment changes

DECLARED ⚠️¶

Stated by someone with authority; independent evidence may be separate.

Examples: - "This is the version we're shipping" — Operations team declared it - "SIM swap is the main threat in Thailand" — Security researcher stated it - "Budget for Phase 1 is 100 units" — Roadmap says so

Confidence: MEDIUM
Trust: Use with cross-check
Lifespan: Until contradicted

INFERRED 🤔¶

Conclusion drawn from multiple observations, but not directly verified.

Examples: - "The system is stable" — All tests passed + no crashes reported (inferred) - "Family wants privacy" — Multiple family members said so (inferred) - "Repository A is more mature than B" — Comparison of commit history (inferred)

Confidence: MEDIUM → LOW
Trust: Use for planning, not decisions
Lifespan: Until contrary evidence appears

UNKNOWN ❓¶

Insufficient evidence to determine truth.

Examples: - "What's the complete architecture of the system?" — Still discovering - "How many people will use this?" — Unpredictable - "What happens if Cloudflare goes down?" — Not tested yet

Confidence: LOW
Trust: Don't assume; investigate first
Lifespan: Until evidence appears

How to Document Evidence¶

For Every Claim¶

claim: "Statement of what we claim to be true"
classification: OBSERVED | DECLARED | INFERRED | UNKNOWN
source: "Where this comes from (URL, document, person, measurement)"
observed_at: "2026-07-22T10:30:00Z"
verified_by: "Who checked this? (name or system)"
confidence: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
why: "Reasoning for this confidence level"
next_verification: "What would increase confidence?"
contradictions: "Known conflicts with other claims"
expires: "2026-08-22 or null if permanent"

Data Contract (For Ingestion)¶

Allow a future Worker to turn submitted Markdown into dashboard pages without trusting the submitted content as a system instruction.

Submission Envelope¶

schema_version: 1
document_id: project-command-center-current-state
title: Command Center current state
document_type: current_state | project | evidence | decision
source:
  system: github
  account: dev-command-center
  locator: dev-command-center/command-center/README.md
subject_ids:
  - project-command-center
observed_at: 2026-07-22T00:00:00Z
valid_until: null
classification: OBSERVED | INFERRED | DECLARED | UNKNOWN
content_digest: sha256:...
supersedes: null

Validation Rules¶

schema_version is supported
document_id is stable + unique
Timestamps are UTC ISO 8601
Classification is one of four types
Source locator present for external facts
Digest matches input
Secrets rejected
Links validated

Conflict Policy¶

Two valid observations may disagree. System retains both: - Conflicting values shown - Sources referenced - Observation times recorded - Expiry tracked - Resolution status flagged

Important: Newest observation does NOT automatically win. Requires explicit policy.

Expiration & Refresh¶

Evidence doesn't last forever:

Type	Typical Lifespan	Refresh When
System metrics	1 hour	System state changes
Measurements	1 day	Environment changes
Documentation	30 days	Process changes
Declarations	Until contradicted	New info arrives
Inferences	7 days	Underlying facts change
Plans/roadmaps	3 months	Goals change

Contradiction Handling¶

When two claims contradict:

Acknowledge — Document both claims
Gather evidence — Find support for each
Classify — OBSERVED vs INFERRED explains some conflicts
Decide — Who has authority? Document reasoning
Learn — Why did we disagree? Prevent next time

Rule: Never suppress contradictions. They teach.

Source Hierarchy¶

When sources conflict, weight them:

Measurement (you tested it) — Highest
Documentation (written record) — High
Expert (field specialist) — Medium
Report (research summary) — Medium
News/media (secondhand) — Low
Hearsay (someone told me) — Very low

Next: Research & Methodology¶

See: /09-research/ for working papers and deep dives into specific topics.