Method record / source-trace contract
Claims before essays.
The unit of publication is a material claim with a stable ID, bounded scope, review date, evidence treatment, and direct links to its supporting or contradicting records.
State lexicon / classification is not proof
Five evidence treatments.
Each state says how the answer handles a claim. The attached source trace remains the inspectable evidence.
- documented
- A stable, checkable fact with a resolvable primary or authoritative record.
- First-party policy supports only the named party’s current policy or account.
- corroborated
- Separate records agree within the claim’s stated scope and time window.
- Agreement does not erase shared sourcing, copied claims, or counterexamples.
- single-source
- One record supports the claim; the answer keeps that dependency visible.
- A report of experience does not establish another person’s motive or universal practice.
- disputed
- Competing accounts remain visible without being averaged into false agreement.
- The answer states what evidence would resolve or narrow the disagreement.
- superseded
- A later revision replaces the claim while the earlier value and reason remain in history.
- Silent rewrites are not a substitute for a correction trail.
Source trace / list and visual parity
What each answer connects.
The ruled list is the durable interface. Decorative lines never stand in for a link or source identifier.
One material assertion with a stable ID, applicability, and treatment.
Title, publisher, source kind, access date, and resolvable URL.
Support, contradiction, qualification, or expiry—not a decorative citation.
Review date, changed text, reason, and the prior value when material.
Publication boundary / static by design
Read-only is a product choice.
Popularity, server rank, Discord membership, and posting volume do not increase a claim’s evidence quality.
- Published answers
Static pages with source links, absolute review dates, and durable routes.
- Private corrections
A published role address accepts claim-specific corrections, privacy requests, and takedown notices.
- On-site proposals
Not offered. No form can accidentally publish unsafe, private, or unreviewed material.
- Open discussion
Not offered. A knowledge record does not need public chat to answer a bounded question.
Sensitivity lanes / fail closed
Different claims require different review.
- Game mechanics
- Versioned records and reproducible behavior may support a narrow technical claim.
- source coverage required
- Community practice
- Multiple records may describe a pattern; scope and counterexamples remain visible.
- corroboration required
- Lore testimony
- Consent and provenance establish what a witness reports, not another person’s motive.
- human review required
- Private-person allegation
- Defamation, identity, harassment, and safety risk make automatic publication unacceptable.
- escalate or reject
- Doxxing or unsafe instructions
- Identity exposure, credential harm, malware, or actionable exploit steps do not enter the public record.
- reject / emergency review
Scope boundary / one canonical job
What stays outside this manual.
- Live status
- Player counts, queue estimates, latency, uptime, and server rankings are not inferred or reproduced here.
- Unsafe detail
- Credential theft, malware, doxxing, and actionable exploit instructions do not enter answer records.
- Unbounded history
- A terminology answer may cite a historical record, but it does not silently expand into a complete chronology.