Educational companion dossier · Fact, interpretation, lived experience, clinical education, fiction, and mechanics are labeled separately. Scope & safety
PsychologicalWar.orgPeople before labels.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

METHOD & SOURCES

Method: Transparent, Revisable, and Explicitly Limited

The editorial method used to distinguish source quality, fact, interpretation, dispute, uncertainty, lived experience, clinical education, fiction, and mechanics.

Read the working brief Choose a learning path
LEVEL 1

ORIENTATION

Why this matters

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

One-sentence brief

“Unbiased” is not a claim of perfect neutrality. It is a transparent method for showing how conclusions were reached, what is missing, and how corrections change the record.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Three key points

  1. Prefer traceable evidence over confident tone.
  2. Publish major credible alternatives where sources disagree.
  3. State what evidence would change the current assessment.
LEVEL 2

WORKING BRIEF

Evidence, context, and limits

REAL-WORLD VERIFIED

Source hierarchy

Primary sources are closest to the event or institution; secondary sources interpret and contextualize; tertiary sources summarize. Proximity alone does not guarantee accuracy. A primary source may be self-serving, incomplete, coerced, or produced under institutional pressure.

  • Classify source type.
  • Record date and jurisdiction.
  • Evaluate incentives and access.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Fact, interpretation, and dispute

Verified fact means the cited evidence supports a narrow claim. Interpretive material explains patterns or implications. Disputed material presents multiple credible accounts. Unknown remains unknown; missing data is not silently filled from stereotypes or adjacent fields.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Source reliability versus information credibility

A source may have a strong history but provide a weak claim, or a mixed history but provide a well-corroborated observation. Reliability belongs to the source relationship; credibility belongs to the specific information. Both can change over time.

REAL-WORLD VERIFIED

Corrections and version history

Corrections preserve prior wording, corrected wording, reason, source change, reviewer, UTC date, and affected game-linked derivatives. A reader submission creates a review request, not automatic publication.

DISPUTED / MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS

Review gates

Cultural, clinical, lived-experience, accessibility, and legal review are distinct gates. This WIP release records where external review has not yet occurred rather than implying approval.

LEVEL 3

COMPLETE DOSSIER

Limitations, game links, and review context

DISPUTED / MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS

Known limitations and gaps

  • Public evidence about intelligence institutions is incomplete by design and often uneven across jurisdictions.
  • Historical cases can illuminate methods but should not be treated as universal templates.
  • Game examples are fictional abstractions and do not establish real-world facts.
LEVEL 4

RESEARCH EDITION

Sources, methods, and stable links

REAL-WORLD VERIFIED

Source-quality rubric

Source type
Is the source primary, secondary, tertiary, lived-experience, clinical guidance, historical synthesis, fictional record, or game mechanic?Stronger: The type is explicit and appropriate to the claim. Warning: A summary is treated as direct evidence or fiction is presented as real-world fact.
Proximity and access
What could the source directly know, observe, record, or verify?Stronger: Access is specific and limitations are stated. Warning: Status or confidence is substituted for direct access.
Independence
Do corroborating sources share an origin, incentive, or reporting chain?Stronger: Independent origins are documented. Warning: Many repetitions are counted as many sources.
Method transparency
Can a reader understand how evidence was collected, selected, transformed, and interpreted?Stronger: Method and exclusions are visible. Warning: The conclusion is confident but the method is hidden.
Date and jurisdiction
Is the evidence current enough and legally relevant to the claim?Stronger: Date range and jurisdiction are explicit. Warning: Old or foreign rules are presented as current universal law.
Incentives and conflicts
What benefit, pressure, duty, fear, or institutional interest could shape the record?Stronger: Conflicts are disclosed without treating them as proof. Warning: The source is accepted or rejected solely by affiliation.
Corroboration and disconfirmation
What independent evidence supports or weakens the claim?Stronger: Counterevidence and alternative hypotheses are addressed. Warning: Only confirming examples are selected.
Correction history
Does the source correct errors and preserve material changes?Stronger: Corrections are dated and linked. Warning: Changes are silent or prior wording disappears.
NEXT

CONTINUE

Related learning

Method & SourcesSources, Reviews, and Evidence BoundariesA public catalog of source types, report metadata, review status, limitations, corrections, and the boundary between public educational editions and protected internal research. Learning pathEvidence Before AccusationPractice claim separation, competing hypotheses, corroboration, chain of custody, and due process.Learning pathInfluence and Disinformation ResilienceTrace provenance, source laundering, emotion, uncertainty, corrections, and competing accounts.Learning pathResearch EditionReview method, sources, complete public reports, corrections, and known limitations.