Claiming Origins
The working guide: classify honestly, weight alternatives, and let disagreement stand
This guide is the workflow for classifying an observation's origin. Origin claims are where credibility is won or lost, so the discipline matters more than the mechanics.
1. Survey the taxonomy first
Before classifying, know what the candidate space looks like — especially the prosaic branch:
import { getChildren, searchNodes, getPath } from '@disclosureos/origins';
getChildren('1.1.1'); // the prosaic family: natural, human
searchNodes('balloon'); // find nodes by label/description/alias
getPath('1.1.1.2.4'); // 'Physical > Intradimensional > Prosaic > Human > Private / Commercial'The strongest exotic claim is one made by an evaluator who demonstrably worked the prosaic branch first.
2. Claim at the depth the evidence supports
import { createOriginClaim } from '@disclosureos/origins';
// Evidence excludes known craft but says nothing about locale:
createOriginClaim('1.1.3', 0.4, { /* ... */ }); // honest
// The same evidence does NOT support:
createOriginClaim('1.1.3.2', 0.4, { /* ... */ }); // interstellar? based on what?3. Weight your alternatives inside the claim
A serious analysis almost always entertains more than one hypothesis. Put them in the claim, weighted:
const claim = createOriginClaim('1.1.3', 0.4, {
rationale:
'Kinematics exceed known aerospace capability per radar data; ' +
'classified domestic program cannot be excluded; sensor artifact unlikely given multi-platform correlation.',
alternativeHypotheses: [
{ nodeId: '1.1.1.2.1', confidence: 0.25, label: 'Classified U.S. program' },
{ nodeId: '2.2.1', confidence: 0.1, label: 'Misinterpretation' },
],
evidenceRefs: ['sensor:princeton-spy1-radar'],
evaluatedBy: 'example-institution',
});The confidences here sum to 0.75 — the remaining 0.25 is unassigned uncertainty, and that's the honest state. Don't inflate the primary to make the numbers look decisive.
4. Append to the slot — never overwrite
(observation.origin ??= []).push(claim);The origin slot is the inter-evaluator axis. If a prior claim from another institution says 2.1.5 (hoax) and you conclude 1.1.3, both belong in the list. Removing a competing claim doesn't strengthen yours — it just makes the record untrustworthy.
If you're revising your own earlier claim, add the new one and relate the records or note the supersession in rationale; the timestamps establish the sequence.
5. Cite evidence, especially for exotic nodes
The further from prosaic, the more the claim needs evidenceRefs. A 1.1.3 claim with no cited evidence will — correctly — be discounted by compellingness scoring and by every serious reader.
6. Validate
import { parseEnrichedObservation } from '@disclosureos/schema';
const result = parseEnrichedObservation(observation);npx @disclosureos/cli validate observation.json
# warns if a claim cites evidence the record doesn't containAnti-patterns
| Anti-pattern | Instead |
|---|---|
| Claiming a leaf node on witness testimony alone | Claim the shallowest honest node |
| Confidence 0.95 on anything exotic | If it were that certain, it would be world news |
| Deleting a hoax claim you disagree with | Add your claim; let scoring surface the contest |
Using eventType or tags for origin language | Origin lives in the origin slot, attributed |
| One "consensus" claim merged from several analysts | One claim per evaluator — attribution is the point |