Objective: Help people act on credible information now without representing uncertain or case-specific conclusions as established universal rules.
Two separate questions
- What conclusion does the available information support?
confirmed_yes,confirmed_no,likely_yes,likely_no, orunknown. - How strong is that support?
verified(explicit documentary support),high,moderate,low, orundetermined.
A conclusion that something is probably absent may be well supported by thorough official procedures, but is still an inference if there is no explicit authoritative exclusion. Document why the material should reasonably mention the requirement if one existed; also document the coverage limits of that search.
Not researched and researched but inconclusive are different statuses, even if both have an unknown answer.
Publication guidance
| Assessment | Reader-facing wording |
|---|---|
| Directly verified and applicable | State the rule with jurisdiction, applicable dates, and source |
| Strong positive or negative inference | "Likely" / "No general requirement identified" plus the basis and a confirmation channel |
| Moderate inference | "May" / "Possibly" and what to ask next |
| Unknown | Say what is unknown, why it matters and whom to contact |
| Contradiction | Show the discrepancy, scope, and controlling authority still required |
For individual eligibility, payment schedules, grant amounts, or application deadlines, distinguish an available program from a particular applicant’s eligibility and distinguish a program-wide cap from an individual award.
Minimal fields for a published finding
- Concise conclusion and relevant program/declaration/jurisdiction.
- Status and evidence basis (explicit or inferred).
- Source link/locator and date or note that it came from prior research.
- Material qualifications, exceptions, and unresolved issues.
- Concrete next step and agency/channel for verification when useful.
A long validation workflow is not a prerequisite for publishing general, properly qualified guidance. Delay or prominently restrict only claims where unsupported certainty could materially harm someone: falsely guaranteed awards or approval, advice to ignore deadlines, incorrect seller payment commitments, or an inapplicable disaster declaration.
Practical safeguards
- Do not imply an absence-based inference is a confirmed universal exception.
- Do not treat older or disaster-specific terms as the current nationwide rule.
- Do not publish personal, financial, or vehicle-identifying case information.
- Correct misleading impressions openly, preserve the prior research text, and link the correction from the public guide.
- Recheck deadlines and disaster designations near publication and whenever a user is about to act.
The schema’s richer epistemic fields remain available for structured storage, but these short statuses are enough for practical guidance.