Possible explanations
Origins
Describe what might explain an observation.
Origins provides shared terms for possible explanations of unidentified anomalous phenomena. A researcher can name a hypothesis, explain how they examined it and keep the question open when the available information is not enough.
Explore how origins workHow origins work
Turn a possible explanation into a question
An observable describes a characteristic, such as apparent movement. An origin hypothesis proposes what could account for it. Claims keeps the researcher’s assessment connected to its author and sources.
- 01 / The record
What was reported?
The observers describe a light from different positions. Neither resolves a body or measures its distance.
The original accounts remain intact. - 02 / The explanation
Could the view explain it?
The optical-effect entry names a possible explanation. The researcher asks whether viewing conditions account for the light.
The catalog supplies the meaning of the term. - 03 / The review
What would test that?
The review identifies missing geometry and proposes controlled observations. It does not identify a specific optical effect.
The attributed claim records an inconclusive result.
These parts can be used together without imposing a fixed workflow. A record can remain useful even when no origin has been proposed or assessed.
Compare explanations
The same observation can prompt different tests
Choose a question to see why it remains open and what the reviewer would examine next. These reviews use fictional sources from the DisclosureOS example case, named Meridian in its source files.
Do viewing conditions or an optical effect explain the reported light?
The observers had different views of an unresolved light. That makes an optical effect worth testing, but the retained material does not reproduce one or identify its cause.
Summary of this fictional review
- Reviewed by
- Meridian vocabulary review team (fictional)
- Review date
- Confidence
- Not supplied
What is missing
The review cannot reconstruct the view or reproduce a specific optical effect.
What the reviewer would check next
Repeat the observation from known positions, using controlled optics and known lights. Compare the predicted changes with independently timed recordings.
Read the full reviewOriginal wording from the reviewer
Different stations and a partly obstructed view make an optical or viewing-condition explanation worth testing. The accounts describe apparent shapes without resolving a shared surface. That is compatible with several viewing effects, but compatibility is not an identification.
No lens model, exposure sequence or reconstructed line of sight is supplied in this dated packet. The report therefore does not identify a reflection, mirage or other specific effect. A source that persisted across controlled changes of viewpoint would place a different constraint on this explanation.
Limits recorded by the reviewer
The record does not reproduce a specific optical effect or establish the geometry needed to test one.Proposed follow-up
Repeat observations from documented positions with controlled optics and known lights; compare predicted image changes with independently timed native captures.
The proposed follow-up has not been performed in this example.
Sources used in this review
4 sourcesChoose a source to see what it contributes.
Source summary
Report B · page 3
The revised wording and alternative explanation.
Edition B · Page 3Explore the catalog
A map of proposed explanations
The Origin Classification System (OCS) organizes 96 entries into three families. It includes broad groups and specific hypotheses, from conventional explanations to speculative proposals. A place in this framework does not establish that an explanation is correct.
Browse from a broad family to a specific term, or search all 96 entries. These include group headings as well as individual hypotheses.
Within Natural
Optical Artifact / Illusion
Catalog wording
Lens flares, reflections, mirages, temperature inversions, or other optical effects.
How the framework describes testability
This is the framework’s designation for this entry. It does not establish a test method, scientific consensus or support for the explanation. Each hypothesis still needs a specific question and a suitable test.
Group headings and their child entries can have different designations.
What an entry includes
More than a name for a theory
A shared definition lets readers understand which explanation was considered. The review records how it was used in a particular case.
A defined explanationKeep the intended meaning with its name
- A name, description and identifier for the exact catalog entry
- The catalog revision and its recorded fingerprint, so a later edit does not silently change the definition
- Alternative names where the catalog supplies them
A place in the frameworkMove between broad groups and specific explanations
- A family, parent entry and any narrower entries
- Grouping by the kind of explanation proposed, without ranking its likelihood
- Separate assessments for separate terms; a review is not inherited by a parent, child or sibling
An attributable connection to a reviewKnow who used the term and for which question
- The exact claim and the catalog term, connected by an attributed reference
- The subject under review and its supporting sources, preserved separately
- The reviewer’s declared outcome, method, reasoning and any confidence they supplied
Testability & limits
A testable question still needs a test
The catalog records whether its framework designates an entry as scientifically testable. That label does not supply a test procedure or establish scientific agreement. A review must describe the actual comparison, its assumptions and what could count against the explanation.
Could it be investigated?
A testability designation describes the catalog’s position. It is separate from the information available for an individual case.
Has it been established?
The optical explanation is marked testable in the framework. The fictional review remains inconclusive because the required comparison has not been performed.
An unresolved conventional explanation does not establish an extraordinary one. An entry without an assessment has no case result. These three inconclusive reviews are not equal probabilities or a complete set of alternatives.
Explore or build
Use the standard
Make the methods and reasoning behind an evaluation available for review.