Primary evidence before commentary
Original and controlling records are preferred over summaries and commentary where reasonably obtainable.
Evidence assurance
If you are going to rely on a conclusion, the evidence behind it should be traceable, appropriately independent and strong enough for the consequence of the decision.
Original and controlling records are preferred over summaries and commentary where reasonably obtainable.
Repeated reporting does not create independent corroboration when several sources depend on the same origin.
Evidence that weakens the leading interpretation remains part of the assessment.
Where more than one explanation fits the evidence, alternative explanations are examined.
Unavailable records, unresolved questions and material gaps are not hidden by confident drafting.
The final assessment states what the evidence can and cannot responsibly support for the intended decision.
Artificial intelligence, generated recollection, apparent familiarity, repeated statements or confident language cannot establish a material fact. Material propositions in professional work require an identifiable evidentiary basis.
Evidence in practice
The MH370 dossier shows how factual status, reliance levels, source independence, model dependence, contradictions and unresolved gaps are kept separate rather than blended into one confident narrative.
Material factual propositions must be traceable to an identifiable evidential basis. Model memory, repetition and plausibility are not substitutes for evidence.
Where relevant primary or controlling records exist, they ordinarily carry greater weight than commentary describing them.
Several publications copied from one origin may still represent one evidential source.
Material contrary evidence is not removed to make a report cleaner.
Professional research distinguishes what is known, supported, disputed, unsupported and unknown.
Not finding a record does not automatically prove an event never occurred.