Evidence: from source to verifiable claim
Status of development — October 9, 2026. This is a manually updated explanation of our initial research records. It is not a live synchronization with internal Shopify registers, not an independent quality seal, and not an automated truth-check.
An encyclopedic claim only reaches true research quality when we can point precisely to which source supports what, what that source does not demonstrate, how other sources relate to it, and who made a subsequent editorial decision. The source, the piece of evidence, the judgment, and the permission to publish are separate objects.
1. What is new in this phase?
In addition to the registers for subject, source, claim, correction, assessment, and publication proposal, there is now a separate, restricted evidence register. A piece of evidence can only be saved when the references to a claim and a source have the correct record type. The link points to actual administrative record IDs, not just manually typed names. Even that does not prevent all content errors: meaning, topicality, and rights require their own verification.
2. First two pieces of evidence
EVID-ASTRO-NASA-001 — Average distance between Earth and Moon
Claim: CLAIM-ASTRO-001. Source: SRC-NASA-MOON-001. Original source: NASA Science — Moon Facts.
NASA describes approximately 384,400 kilometers as the average distance between the Earth and the Moon. That is not the same as their distance at this exact moment. The evidence records that scope, the variation in distance, and the lack of an independent assessment organized by SHRARA. Status: primary source described; independent assessment pending.
EVID-HEALTH-WHO-001 — Malaria: parasites and transmission
Claim: CLAIM-HEALTH-001. Source: SRC-WHO-MALARIA-001. Original source: WHO — Malaria Fact Sheet.
The WHO describes Plasmodium parasites as the cause of malaria and infected female Anopheles mosquitoes as the usual transmitters. This does not exclude other, rarer transmission routes and is not an individual medical diagnosis. Status: primary source described; external independent and clinical review pending.
3. How do we assess a piece of evidence?
- Identity: is the original source traceable to the actual publisher and a specific location?
- Literal context: which part supports the precisely formulated claim, within what timeframe and circumstances?
- Source dependence: are two reports truly independent witnesses or are they repeating one original publication?
- Counter-information: which relevant exceptions, alternative explanations, or counter-evidence deserve inclusion?
- Use and rights: may text, image, video, or audio be displayed in this way, or do we limit ourselves to our own summary and link?
- Safety: what risks arise for children, privacy, reputation, or health?
- Independence: which actually involved assessor, interest check, and reasoned decision have been demonstrably recorded?
4. What is explicitly not approved?
In this snapshot, no independent assessment records and no publication authorization records have been registered. The two pieces of evidence are internal research notes. Their presence does not grant editorial permission. Furthermore, a secure server-side publication chain that enforces all conditions is still missing; the interactive checklist is merely a demonstration.
Fictional textbook examples are deliberately not included in this source register as if they were empirically proven news facts. Real corrections must be visibly linked to the previous and new version. No change should be presented as an invisible, flawless history.
5. View the other sections
Public source and claim register · Example library · Editorial assessment · Publication gateway and retraction procedure · Corrections and objections.
Source reading date of the registered pilot evidence: October 9, 2026. This page is a manually described snapshot; consult the original organizations for subsequent changes.