A list of sources is not yet a hierarchy. Interpretive stability depends on knowing which surfaces should arbitrate conflict when the web does not speak with one voice.
Operational definition
A source hierarchy is the explicit ordering of sources by interpretive authority, editability, persistence, and canonical status. Its function is to make conflict resolution governable when on-site canon, third-party surfaces, and archives diverge.
Why hierarchy matters more than abundance
Generative systems often reward the appearance of corroboration. But repeated mention is not the same thing as canonical authority. A hierarchy is needed because conflict cannot be solved by counting surfaces; it must be solved by governing which surfaces deserve precedence.
Source classes
- On-site canon: the highest authority for the governed object.
- Editable secondary surfaces: spaces that can be aligned but are not canonical.
- Non-editable or weakly editable surfaces: references that influence interpretation without easy control.
- Obsolete archives: temporally dangerous material that remains active in synthesis.
- Derived summaries: outputs or mirrors that must not outrank the canon.
Arbitration logic
- Define the canonical source for each object before conflict appears.
- Classify external surfaces by editability and interpretive weight.
- Route high-impact contradictions toward correction, replacement, or explicit negation.
- Use temporal markers to demote obsolete archives when they remain visible.
- Keep the hierarchy legible across schema, content, and cross-references.
What this hierarchy prevents
- Frequency outranking authority.
- Off-site summaries displacing the on-site canon.
- Obsolete archives continuing to arbitrate current interpretation.
- Conflict resolution by intuition rather than rule.
