Sources, Reviews, and Evidence Boundaries

LEVEL 1

ORIENTATION

Why this matters

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

One-sentence brief

Readers should be able to see what supports a claim, what kind of source it is, how current it is, and why some complete reports remain private while their safe lessons are published.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Three key points

Complete public reports keep stable heading links.
Private technical research informs safe lessons but has no public route.
A report can be preserved without being endorsed as canon or clinical consensus.

LEVEL 2

WORKING BRIEF

Evidence, context, and limits

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Public research editions

Public reports directly support intelligence literacy, evidence methods, historical context, operational psychology, mental-health literacy, character interpretation, ethics, oversight, or a game-linked case. They receive stable routes and heading anchors.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Protected internal reports

Internal implementation materials, private operational records, deployment-sensitive information, and unrelated product strategy remain protected. Useful human-centered conclusions are translated into public-safe methods and cases.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Source quality rubric

The site records source type, author or institution where known, publication date, jurisdiction, access to evidence, independence, corroboration, incentives, methodological transparency, limitations, and correction history.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Research versus canon

Research supports design decisions but does not automatically establish fictional world truth. Game canon is authored separately, and fictional records remain labeled.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Citation and print

Public research pages provide stable URLs, heading anchors, source notes, print styles, and machine-readable public metadata without exposing private memory or implementation details.

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.

GAME MECHANIC

RogueIntelligence.org connections

Research WikiBrowse complete public reports and heading-level anchors.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Glossary cross-reference

Terms are defined for this site’s evidence method, not as universal legal or clinical definitions.

source type provenance review status canon research edition

LEVEL 4

RESEARCH EDITION

Sources, methods, and stable links

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Linked reports

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.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Complete public report inventory

28 reports · 15,173 indexed words · 434 stable section anchors.

Related learning

Method & SourcesMethod: Transparent, Revisable, and Explicitly LimitedThe editorial method used to distinguish source quality, fact, interpretation, dispute, uncertainty, lived experience, clinical education, fiction, and mechanics. Learning pathResearch EditionReview method, sources, complete public reports, corrections, and known limitations.