The Standard · Part 4 of 5 — Attribution
Every assessment of a case is recorded as a claim: who made it, when, why, and the evidence behind it. When evaluators disagree, competing claims sit side by side instead of overwriting each other.
An attributed, evidence-backed assertion (Attribution + the evidence that justifies it). A record holds facts; a claim is how someone’s assessment attaches to those facts without becoming one of them. Every claim carries the same structure: who made it, when, their reasoning, and pointers to the evidence that backs it. No claim is ever treated as the official answer — deciding which claims to trust comes later, in scoring.
evaluatedAtWhen this judgement was made (ISO 8601 datetime).
evaluatedByWho made this judgement — a person, agency, or agent identifier.
rationaleWhy this judgement was reached — the evaluator's stated reasoning.
evidenceRefsRefs to in-record evidence justifying this claim, e.g. "media:<id>", "sensor:<id>".
A claim points at the evidence that justifies it using a typed pointer into the record itself — four kinds, written as kind:id. That pointer is checked against evidence already on the record, so a claim can never cite something that is not there.
media:<id>A media attachment on the record (photo, video, audio, document).
sensor:<id>A sensor reading in the record’s sensor evidence.
physical:<id>A physical evidence item (forensic extension).
testimony:<id>A testimony statement (forensic extension).
UAP data is contested by nature, so the model keeps two kinds of disagreement separate and never collapses one into the other. Within a single claim, one evaluator can hedge. Across claims, different evaluators can flatly disagree — and both claims stay on the record.
Across claims — disagreement
A record holds a list of claims, not a single answer. Competing claims from different evaluators coexist; none is overwritten or marked as the official one.
USS Nimitz “Tic Tac” (2004) · Instantaneous Acceleration
Radar tracked descent from ~80,000 ft to sea level in seconds.
Available sensor data judged insufficient to establish the maneuver.
Within a claim — hedging
A single origin claim names one primary hypothesis and can weighalternativeHypothesesalongside it — one evaluator expressing graded uncertainty.
Independent analyst · one claim
1.1.3Extraterrestrialprimary40%1.1.1.2.1Governmentalalternative25%Observable claims and origin claims share the same core fields and add only the few fields that make them their kind. Each attaches to its own dedicated place on the record.
@disclosureos/observables
An attributed observable claim, keyed by its map position (no observableId).
Adds
levelEvidentiary tier of an observable assessment — how strongly the signal is established.
confidenceConfidence in the assessment, in [0,1]. 0 = none, 1 = absolute.
Shared fields
evaluatedAtevaluatedByrationaleevidenceRefsPlace on the record
A list of observable claims for each Technology or Biologics signal.
Code: observableAssessments (ObservableClaim[])
Per observable id, a list of claims about how strong the evidence for that signal is.
@disclosureos/origins
An attributed origin-hypothesis classification for an observation.
Adds
primaryHypothesisOCS node id of the primary hypothesis.
confidenceConfidence in the primary hypothesis, in [0,1].
alternativeHypothesesOther OCS hypotheses this same evaluator weighs as possible, each with its own confidence — the intra-claim uncertainty axis.
Shared fields
evaluatedAtevaluatedByrationaleevidenceRefsPlace on the record
A list of competing origin classifications for the same observation.
Code: origin (OriginClaim[])
A list of competing classifications of what the observation was.
Because records keep every claim without ranking them, the questions people actually ask — which claim to trust, whether evaluators disagree, what the confidence range is — are answered one layer up. Weighing evaluators and producing a single number is Part 5: Scoring.