Evidence assurance

Evidence Standards for Responsible Reliance

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.

Share this resource

Information is not automatically evidence.

Primary evidence before commentary

Original and controlling records are preferred over summaries and commentary where reasonably obtainable.

Source independence before volume

Repeated reporting does not create independent corroboration when several sources depend on the same origin.

Contradictions remain visible

Evidence that weakens the leading interpretation remains part of the assessment.

Alternative explanations are tested

Where more than one explanation fits the evidence, alternative explanations are examined.

Uncertainty is disclosed

Unavailable records, unresolved questions and material gaps are not hidden by confident drafting.

Reliance is explicit

The final assessment states what the evidence can and cannot responsibly support for the intended decision.

Illustrative situation

The company on the proposal and the company in the register

You have a proposal from a business you have not used before. The trading name on its website differs from the legal name on the contract.

Which entity would we actually contract with, and which claims belong to that entity?

What we would examine: Compare the entity identifiers, dated corporate records and supplied documents. Attribute group and subsidiary claims to the entity they actually describe.
What you could receive: A company identity brief with an entity map, source references and unresolved attribution questions.

How a finding could read, if the evidence supported it

The trading name can be connected to the contracting entity. The parent company’s operating history does not, by itself, establish the subsidiary’s history.

Why this helps: Your team can see what it knows about the actual counterparty before relying on a familiar name.

This is an illustration, not a completed client assignment or a finding about a real organisation. The actual evidence determines the result.

Model memory is not evidence.

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.

See the human-controlled technology standard →

Evidence in practice

See what the evidence standards do 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.

Explore the MH370 Case Inspect every supplied dossier file →

No conclusion stronger than the available evidence.

Discuss a Matter

THE EVIDENCE MUST FIT THE CONCLUSION.

Material factual propositions must be traceable to an identifiable evidential basis. Model memory, repetition and plausibility are not substitutes for evidence.

Primary sources matter.

Where relevant primary or controlling records exist, they ordinarily carry greater weight than commentary describing them.

Source independence matters.

Several publications copied from one origin may still represent one evidential source.

Contradictions remain visible.

Material contrary evidence is not removed to make a report cleaner.

Uncertainty is part of the result.

Professional research distinguishes what is known, supported, disputed, unsupported and unknown.

Absence of evidence is handled carefully.

Not finding a record does not automatically prove an event never occurred.