Established in the cited record
The cited source directly supports the stated proposition within its scope.
Sources · Claim status · Corrections
Evidence & Corrections Method
Civic Clarity explains public institutions without adopting a party’s preferred conclusion. Every material claim should show what kind of source supports it, what that source establishes, who has authority, what remains uncertain, and how the record can be corrected.
The core rule
Describe the strongest supportable claim—no stronger. A complaint proves a complaint was filed. An audit finding proves the named audit body reached that finding under its stated scope. A court filing is not a judgment. A recommendation is not implementation. A missing record is not proof of a proposed explanation.
Source hierarchy
| Source level | Examples | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Primary legal and official record | Statutes, regulations, executive orders, court opinions and orders, legislative text and votes, agency records, contracts, audits, official reports, and datasets. | Preferred for law, authority, official action, recorded amounts, dates, procedures, and formal findings. Scope, version, and status still matter. |
| Authoritative institutional analysis | Nonpartisan legislative support agencies, statistical agencies, oversight bodies, research institutions, and transparent expert analysis. | Used for estimates, projections, comparisons, and context. Assumptions and uncertainty remain visible. |
| Corroborated independent reporting | Document-based reporting and multiple credible outlets independently confirming material facts. | Used for speed, context, and research leads; primary support is added where available. |
| Interested-party statement | Statements by officials, parties, companies, advocates, litigants, witnesses, or other participants. | Attributed to the speaker and treated as evidence of what was asserted, not automatic proof that the assertion is true. |
| Unverified research lead | Material whose source, authenticity, context, completeness, or method is not established. | Not published as established fact. It may guide a search for verifiable records. |
Claim-status labels
Officially reported
An identified office published a count, status, assertion, or explanation under its own method.
Alleged
A named person or filing asserts a contested fact; no final finding is implied.
Under review
An authorized body has opened or acknowledged a process. Opening it is not a merits finding.
Found or substantiated
An identified body reached a conclusion under a stated standard, subject to any review, dissent, or limits.
Estimated or projected
The result depends on assumptions, methodology, baseline, time horizon, and uncertainty.
Disputed
Credible sources materially disagree; the evidence and strongest arguments on each side are presented.
Unknown or unverified
The public record does not support a reliable conclusion. The gap stays visible rather than being filled with speculation.
Publication workflow
Define the exact question
Specify the institution, authority, action, record, time period, and public consequence.
Map authority
Identify who can enact, administer, fund, review, enforce, appeal, or remedy the issue.
Collect the primary record
Locate the operative law, official action, data, filing, report, contract, vote, order, or audit.
Test contrary evidence
Search for amendments, later rulings, corrections, agency responses, dissent, implementation records, and facts that narrow the conclusion.
Apply the correct status
Separate allegation, filing, review, finding, recommendation, enacted law, implementation, measured outcome, estimate, and proposal.
State limits
Record missing data, unavailable material, redactions, methodological limits, unresolved disputes, and the date checked.
Publish with a correction path
Keep source links and claim boundaries visible so errors and later developments can be updated transparently.
Special evidence rules
- A record request does not establish that the requested record exists.
- A redaction, denial, or unavailable record does not prove a proposed hidden event.
- “Unexplained” describes the limits of available evidence; it is not proof of any proposed cause.
- Images, audio, documents, sensor output, and datasets require provenance, authenticity, context, method, and known limitations before substantive interpretation.
- When a claim cannot be independently verified, it remains unpublished or explicitly unverified.
Fact, analysis, proposal, and action stay separate
| Content role | Required distinction |
|---|---|
| Factual explainer | Describes current law, institutions, records, evidence, uncertainty, and credible interpretations without asking the reader to adopt a policy position. |
| Analysis | Labels a reasoned inference as analysis rather than a directly recorded fact. |
| Policy proposal | States a proposed change, rationale, authority, cost, tradeoffs, risks, implementation path, and serious arguments for and against it. |
| Take action | Identifies lawful participation routes and the decision-maker with authority without unsupported accusations. |
Corrections and updates
- Formatting repair: correct presentation without changing the substantive claim.
- Source repair: restore the correct source, date, identifier, or route and verify the claim still holds.
- Material correction: state what was wrong, replace it with the supported claim, and record the correction date.
- Status update: preserve the earlier status and add the later action or measured result.
- Withdrawal: remove unsupported content from active presentation while retaining a transparent explanation.
See the unified platform’s Research, Evidence & Corrections, Responsible America methodology, and source register.
Editorial independence
Civic Clarity shares a public website with The American Renewal Plan, but it does not adopt the Plan’s positions as factual conclusions. Any Plan claim used as a research lead must be independently sourced. A Civic Clarity explainer discussing a proposal separates current law, the proposed change, evidence, authority, costs, limits, and serious arguments on each side.
Read the formal relationship record and the taxonomy continuity record.
Machine-readable governance records
Public route contract
Lists the routes that are public, indexable, and subject to exact-live verification.
Taxonomy continuity contract
Maps every topic removed from the stale policy bucket to a preserved neutral guide or an explicit retirement rule.