Claim taxonomy
- Documented statement: the cited record contains an assertion, regardless of whether the assertion is true.
- Corroborated observation: distinct acquisition pathways support the same observable fact.
- Scholarly interpretation: an argument about the meaning of records, attributed to its proponent.
- Hypothesis: an explanation that still needs discriminating tests.
- Unknown: a needed fact that the reviewed material cannot establish.
Historical method
Primary manuscripts, edited transcripts, translations and publisher descriptions are different source types. Direct originals should be preferred when available; where the site relies on a published translation or secondary summary, that dependence is declared. Reported supernatural experiences are treated as testimony, not proof of extraordinary events.
Technical research method
Technical primers present conceptual models and test designs, not completed experiments unless explicit evidence of an experiment is supplied. Forensic analyses should include lawful acquisition, clocks, hashes, tool versions, error conditions and alternative explanations. Biosurveillance summaries should distinguish reported suspicion from laboratory confirmation.
Rights and quotations
The site uses short original summaries and links to external sources. It does not republish copyrighted trial translations or book chapters. Source material from third parties remains subject to its own terms.
Corrections and revision history
Pages have stable URLs, an editorial date and source identifiers. Proposed corrections should identify the precise sentence, evidence and interpretation. Published site revisions can be compared through Git history once a repository is connected.
Known limitations
The initial archive is selective and based on a bounded set of reviewed published sources; it is not a complete manuscript-level critical edition. It should not be cited as an independently verified comprehensive scholarly corpus.