1. Register
Preserve source identity and record digest metadata without treating a hash as proof of authenticity.
Method
A disciplined path through a complex record.
Evident ICU is designed around source preservation, visible lineage, chronology, and human verification. This page describes the product method and its boundaries; it does not represent every stage as publicly available.
Review sequence
Preserve first. Interpret later.
The sequence protects the distinction between material received, artifacts produced, and conclusions a reviewer may draw. Capability states are based on the repository’s flagship contract as of this build.
2. Derive
Link each transformed record to its source or sources and document the process that produced it.
3. Organize
Build a source-linked chronology that retains uncertainty, conflicting records, and missing material.
4. Review
Separate observed material, user statements, inferences, disputes, and assisted analysis for human review.
5. Assemble
Design a reproducible review package containing sources, derivatives, chronology, and visible limitations.
6. Verify
Recompute what can be recomputed, inspect lineage, resolve gaps where possible, and preserve unresolved issues.
Separation model
One workspace, distinct record classes.
The product model avoids collapsing everything into one editable “case file.”
| Class | What it represents | Required relationship | Review posture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original | Bytes received as a source record | Stable identity and digest metadata | Preserve; do not silently replace |
| Derivative | A transformed or extracted artifact | Source link and transformation record | Compare with the source |
| Annotation | A reviewer’s note, correction, or dispute | Author, time, and target record | Attributable and reviewable |
| Chronology event | An event organized in time | Source support and precision | Retain conflicts and uncertainty |
| Summary | A human or machine-assisted interpretation | Source citations and method label | Never treated as the source itself |
Human review
Automation may surface work. A person remains accountable for conclusions.
- Reviewers must inspect source material and not rely on generated text alone.
- Confidence values describe a process output; they do not establish factual truth.
- Corrections should create attributable history instead of overwriting prior review.
- Exports should disclose missing material, failed stages, uncertainty, and unresolved conflicts.
- Legal foundation, relevance, privilege, and admissibility remain outside automated determination.
Next
Inspect the integrity model.
See what a digest, custody record, and provenance link can establish—and what they cannot.