Governance record · Claim discipline
Evidence records must show what kind of claim is being made, which source supports it, what the source can establish, and where uncertainty remains.
A citation identifies the evidence a claim is asking the reader to trust. It does not make every interpretation, mechanism, or public translation automatically true.
Current public record
Records distinguish source report, source definition, descriptive observation, literature finding, association, interpretation, hypothesis, proposed mechanism, proposed framework, research finding, governing commitment, and public explanation.
Proposal does not become finding through repetition.
A record states how sources were found, why they were included, the search or review date, the relevant population and method, and known omissions. Convenience or conceptual usefulness must be disclosed.
Prefer primary sources for technical claims. Reviews may orient or synthesize, but claims about a study should be checked against the study itself where available. Public resources may support service information, not scientific mechanism claims.
The search date, databases or sources checked, terms, selection approach, and whether a review was systematic, scoped, structured, or illustrative must be visible. Copy edits do not reset an evidence-review date.
A term is linked to the rule used to observe, measure, code, or include it. Different operational definitions are compared rather than silently merged under the same label.
Source language, quotation, paraphrase, coding, and Neurosexology interpretation remain distinguishable. Quotations preserve context and are not used beyond lawful and proportionate limits.
Association, prediction, temporal sequence, and causal mechanism are labeled separately. A population association is not automatically an individual explanation.
A credible report is evidence about lived experience. It does not have to supply a mechanism to matter, and sincerity does not by itself demonstrate a causal explanation.
Believe the report. Test the explanation.
Conflicting findings, measures, definitions, populations, and interpretations are shown where material. The project does not manufacture agreement by averaging non-equivalent evidence layers.
No statistic is published without a visible numerator, denominator, unit, inclusion rule, and source. A recurring phrase or anecdotal pattern is not converted into prevalence.
Records state design, sample, measurement, generalizability, missing evidence, reviewer, and interpretation limits in language proportionate to the claim.
Authorship, relevant funding, institutional relationships, commercial interests, and unresolved record-specific disclosures are visible. Absence of a published disclosure is identified as incomplete rather than treated as proof of no conflict.
Paired records share a governed central proposition. Public clarity may reduce technical detail but may not strengthen confidence, erase uncertainty, or detach a claim from its evidence.
Material new evidence triggers review of the claim, its public translation, related records, evidence date, version, and correction history. Sources supporting a material claim are not silently removed.