Four steps towards sourced research.
Clarify the claim
Record what the organisation says in its original wording. Separate an intention from a delivered result, and a target from a measurement.
Return to the source
Keep the publisher, document date and relevant section visible. An organisation’s own report and an independent review are different types of evidence.
Align period and scope
Examine the baseline, unit, covered facilities and method together. Do not infer progress from two figures measuring different things.
Bring the rationale to human review
Show supporting evidence, counter-evidence and open questions together. AI can prepare a sourced draft; a human reviewer is responsible for the published assessment.
What does a score show?
Transparency and evidence sufficiency describe how well a claim can be supported. A report’s existence does not verify environmental impact. Missing evidence does not automatically mean poor performance or a zero score.
Open to review and correction.
Organisation statements, independent evidence and research interpretation should remain distinct. Visible replies, conflicts of interest and sourced corrections guide the development of the new workspace.
The archive contains more than one methodology version. Read past publications in their original methodological and period context. The new research example is fictional, not an implementation of the archive’s 100-point method.