Claim-Evidence Map & Citation Log

When to use this

• A proposal makes factual assertions that would change your reading if untrue.
• You want a defensible record of what you checked and what you could not check.
• You are preparing questions for the proposer and need them anchored to specific claims.

When NOT to use this

• The proposal contains no factual claims, only a stated intention.
• You have already verified the claims elsewhere and only need to publish.
• You are grading a single claim in depth; use the evidence quality checklist instead.

What you'll need

• The proposal text in full
• Every source the proposal links to
• Time to attempt independent verification of the material claims

Estimated completion time

60 minutes

Working time for one governance action, assuming the inputs listed here are already to hand.

How to interpret the result

• Look at the pattern across rows rather than any single row. A proposal where every high-materiality claim rests on self-reported evidence has a structural evidence problem.
• Low confidence on a high-materiality claim is the strongest signal this tool produces. It tells you where to ask, not how to vote.
• Rows still unresolved at your cut-off belong in your published rationale as stated uncertainty.

Limitations

• The map records the evidence you found in the time you had. Absence in the map is not proof of absence in the world.
• Grading is a judgement, and two careful reviewers can grade the same row differently.
• It cannot detect a claim the proposal never made but a reader might assume.