An evidence trail, not a confidence badge.

Keep the claim precise

We aim to preserve the subject, date, attribution, and qualifications that change the meaning of a statement. A relevant document is not automatically evidence for every assertion about its topic. The claim and the specific support relationship should remain visible together.

A source may support narrower wording than a draft suggests. In that case, qualification or an unresolved status is more useful than a stronger claim with an impressive-looking citation attached to it.

Distinguish sources from recommendations

Each Evidence Journal article includes one editorial outbound link to a focused primary source, such as official documentation, a standards publication, or a research paper. The article identifies the limited source-backed idea and then develops practical recommendations around it. Our proposed architectures, workflows, and review checklists should not be read as promises from the cited organization.

The source index groups the references for further inspection. Source details and external interfaces can change. An implementation should be checked against current documentation and evaluated in the environment where it will be used.

Keep examples visibly illustrative

The Atlas demonstration archive, its release note, and the example assessments in the developer section are fictional. They explain the difference between support, contradiction, and missing evidence. They are not a live test, benchmark, customer case study, or result from a hosted FactAPI.com service.

Other hypothetical scenarios and calculations in the articles are labeled as examples. We do not present invented performance metrics, testimonials, partnerships, or professional credentials as evidence of a product’s quality.

Preserve uncertainty and scope

Our example labels describe an assessment against a specified evidence set. Missing evidence is not automatically evidence of falsehood. A completed request is not automatically a supported claim. A real citation is not automatically a sound interpretation of a study.

Consequential assertions may require subject expertise or a broader review than a single fieldnote can provide. A targeted source check should not be described as a comprehensive scientific, legal, medical, or financial assessment. The actual work performed and its boundaries should remain clear.

Use research without overstating it

Historical research provides useful concepts and evaluation methods. It does not establish the accuracy of a current model, provider, or deployment. We avoid turning benchmark findings into unsupported service promises. Original findings and our implementation suggestions serve different roles in the explanation.

A source’s recognizable name does not settle a question by itself. Readers should be able to inspect the relevant source and see what the article attributes to it. References to outside organizations do not imply endorsement or affiliation.

Corrections and publication information

To report a possible error, send the page address, exact wording, proposed correction, and a credible supporting reference to [email protected]. Clearly distinguish a broken link from an incorrect factual statement or an interpretation you believe needs qualification.

Displayed publication dates are kept consistent across the journal, article metadata, and RSS feed. An update date should describe an actual substantive revision, not a routine page view or an attempt to make an unchanged article appear newly written. Where a source changes, the relevant claim should be reviewed rather than automatically assigned a new conclusion.