Evidence layer
Probative surfaces brought into scope by this page
This page does more than point to governance files. It is also anchored to surfaces that make observation, traceability, fidelity, and audit more reconstructible. Their order below makes the minimal evidence chain explicit.
- 01Canon and scopeDefinitions canon
- 02Evidence artifactclaims.json
- 03Evidence artifactauthority-precedence.json
- 04Evidence artifacteac-resolution-matrix.json
Definitions canon
/canon.md
Opposable base for identity, scope, roles, and negations that must survive synthesis.
- Makes provable
- The reference corpus against which fidelity can be evaluated.
- Does not prove
- Neither that a system already consults it nor that an observed response stays faithful to it.
- Use when
- Before any observation, test, audit, or correction.
claims.json
/claims.json
Published surface that contributes to making an evidence chain more reconstructible.
- Makes provable
- Part of the observation, trace, audit, or fidelity chain.
- Does not prove
- Neither total proof, obedience guarantee, nor implicit certification.
- Use when
- When a page needs to make its evidence regime explicit.
authority-precedence.json
/authority-precedence.json
Published surface that contributes to making an evidence chain more reconstructible.
- Makes provable
- Part of the observation, trace, audit, or fidelity chain.
- Does not prove
- Neither total proof, obedience guarantee, nor implicit certification.
- Use when
- When a page needs to make its evidence regime explicit.
eac-resolution-matrix.json
/eac-resolution-matrix.json
Published surface that contributes to making an evidence chain more reconstructible.
- Makes provable
- Part of the observation, trace, audit, or fidelity chain.
- Does not prove
- Neither total proof, obedience guarantee, nor implicit certification.
- Use when
- When a page needs to make its evidence regime explicit.
Official source vs external reputation
Official sources and external reputation answer different questions. The first establishes what an organization declares, maintains and acknowledges about itself. The second results from evaluation, experience, decisions, research, media, reviews and history outside its authority.
This boundary is critical in generative answers. A system may combine official pages, journalism, reviews, databases and historical descriptions into one sentence without preserving each source role.
Central rule
An official source is competent for identity, scope, policy and official position. It is not the universal arbiter of reputation, comparative performance or the validity of external criticism.
The inverse also applies. An external source does not automatically outrank the current competent source for contact details, an updated offer or policy status.
Authority matrix by claim class
| Claim class | Primary authority | Official-source role | External-source role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Name, status, contact | Current canon | Primary | Corroboration and history |
| Offer, scope, exclusions | Official documents | Primary, subject to offer evidence | Verification, experience and contradiction |
| Policy or position | Official issuer | Primary for its own position | Analysis, challenge and context |
| Performance | Data and competent third parties | May supply attributed data | Needed for independent validation |
| Reputation | Qualified external sources | May respond or contextualize | Primary |
| Comparison | Explicit method and comparable corpus | One source among others | Primary when competent |
| Incident or decision | Primary document or authority | Position and corrective action | Evidence, analysis and history |
| AI output | Reproducible capture or log | No privilege | Cited sources and protocol examined |
Three symmetrical abuses
Official-source laundering: promotional claims such as “most trusted” are treated as external truth.
Obsolete external dominance: an old directory continues to govern a discontinued offer despite current competent evidence.
Unattributed fusion: the AI merges company position and third-party criticism so the reader cannot tell who claims what.
Hash, signature and authority
A hash proves that content has not changed since calculation. A signature may attest the issuer. Neither turns content into general truth. They establish integrity and provenance, not universal competence.
A hashed official statement remains an official statement. A signed independent study still requires methodological review. Governance must preserve this distinction.
Reputation example
A company says it corrected a security incident. An authority publishes a decision and media report the event. A faithful answer should separate the incident and legal status, the company’s stated corrective action, the authority’s findings, attributed external commentary, and the current date.
Using only official material may minimize external evidence. Ignoring current corrective action may freeze the brand in an older state. Fidelity requires both with their respective authority.
Audit procedure
- Split the answer into atomic claims.
- Classify identity, policy, performance, reputation, criticism, comparison and history.
- Identify the visible source.
- Determine the competent source for the claim class.
- Check attribution, date, status and contradiction.
- Qualify the gap as wrong source, obsolete source, omission, fusion or unsupported implication.
- Correct the competent layer and re-observe.
Limits and contestability
This separation does not guarantee a favourable outcome. Qualified external evidence may legitimately be negative. The brand may challenge, contextualize and provide evidence, but it cannot govern the external verdict.
External criticism also has no automatic privilege. Method, attribution, date and competence still matter.
The defensible question is neither “is official always right?” nor “are third parties always more credible?” It is: which source has the appropriate authority for this precise claim, at this time and in this context?