Interpretation & review
Claims
Follow the reasoning behind a conclusion.
A claim records what someone says or concludes about an observation. DisclosureOS connects it to the person who made it, the sources it refers to and any later revisions.
Explore how claims workHow claims work
Separate the account from the assessment
In this fictional case, an observer describes a light’s apparent movement. The reviewer asks whether the account can be linked to the instrument readings. The observer’s words and the reviewer’s conclusion are recorded separately.
What the observer said
I have now read the first report and seen the three plotted channels. I want to clarify what I meant by “moved upward” in my first account. I meant that the light's apparent position changed relative to the ridge. I did not measure its distance, and I did not calculate a physical speed. The plotted optical angle is useful context, but I cannot independently confirm that every plotted sample corresponds to the light I was watching.
What the review concluded
InconclusiveThe connection remains unresolved. The added documents do not show whether the sightings and readings share a cause.
A plain-language summary. Read the reviewer’s original wording in the example below.
The observer describes movement but did not measure distance or speed. Recording the account preserves that limit.
Read the account in contextFollow a review
See how a review changes
The team compares two accounts with optical and radio readings, alongside temperature readings from the station. It revisits its assessment after receiving more documents. Another reviewer considers a different explanation. All three reviews leave the question unresolved.
The team’s reviews
Another reviewer
The earlier review remains available.
Do the added documents clarify the connection?
The connection remains unresolved. The added documents do not show whether the sightings and readings share a cause.
Summary of this fictional review
- Reviewed by
- Meridian review team (fictional)
- Review date
- Confidence
- Not supplied
Read the full reviewOriginal wording from the reviewer
The revised wording is “a shared physical source remains unestablished.” This is not a finding that separate sources have been proven. The follow-up clarifies the difference between apparent motion and measured physical motion and makes the observer's exposure to the graphs explicit. The richer asset specifications describe what will be useful to inspect, but unavailable recordings cannot count as new supporting measurements.
The review retains an inconclusive outcome with a more explicit account of the missing relationship. It does not use the increased number of documents as an increase in scientific confidence. Its proposed follow-up is a defined comparison using actual native products, clock and geometry assumptions, background periods and a stated test of association.
Method: comparison of the cited sources · version 1.
What changed in the revisionThe team changes which sources it uses. The question remains unresolved.
Added 3
- Revised report
- Observer A · follow-up
- Recording specifications
Removed 1
- First report
Unchanged 6
- Observer A · first account
- Observer B · first account
- Optical readings
- Radio readings
- Temperature readings
- Simulation script
Adding sources does not necessarily make a conclusion more certain. The first review remains available.
Sources used in this review
9 sourcesChoose a source to see what it contributes.
Report · Source summary
Revised report
Contains the report’s revised wording and another possible explanation.
Edition B · Page 3Added in the revised reviewWhat remains unresolved
The observer wrote the follow-up after seeing the graphs. The additional documents do not add independent measurements.
What the reviewer would check next
Compare the original recordings with their times, camera positions and pointing directions documented. Include periods outside the reported event. Set out in advance how the comparison will test the connection.
Claim details
What a claim can include
A review can concern a whole observation or something more specific, such as one reading or a tested sample. These details help readers understand exactly what was reviewed.
Source statementsWhat was said and where to find it
- The original wording and where to find it, such as a page or a time in a recording
- The speaker or author, if known, recorded separately from whoever copied the statement into the record
- A clear distinction between what the source says and what a reviewer concludes
What the review coversThe question and the material being examined
- An observation or a particular measurement
- A detail about the setting, a witness, an account, a procedure or a group of witnesses
- A particular document edition, sample, individual detail or proposed relationship between records
Reviewer and methodWho carried out the review and how
- The reviewer's name or label and the date of the review
- The method used and the reasons for the conclusion
- A confidence value, when the reviewer supplies one
Sources consideredThe material used to reach a conclusion
- The specific reports, readings, statements and other material the reviewer used
- The page, passage or location cited by the reviewer, when supplied
- The sources used at the time; adding material to a case does not add it to an earlier review
Revisions and disagreementHow conclusions change over time
- A reviewer can replace an earlier assessment of the same subject and question with a new one
- Earlier wording, sources and reasoning kept available
- Separate assessments from other reviewers, and different revisions that have not been reconciled
Reviews of specific materialA conclusion applies to what was actually examined
- The factors considered in an account review, without an automatic credibility score
- The exact document copy or tested portion, so readers know what the conclusion applies to
- A proposed connection between records; being included in the same case does not establish that connection
Outcomes & limits
What the outcomes mean
An outcome states the reviewer’s conclusion. Read it alongside the question, method and sources. The labels below are different outcomes, not steps toward greater certainty.
Outcome reference
Select a label to read its meaning. This does not change the example reviews.
Inconclusive
The review leaves the question unresolved.
The reviewer has assessed the material but cannot reach a conclusion.
DisclosureOS checks how a claim is recorded and connected to its sources. Those checks do not verify the author’s identity or prove the conclusion.
Explore or build