evidence-grading

name	evidence-grading
description	Assign A/B/C/D evidence grades to claims by walking source type, corroboration count, and procedural stage through a deterministic decision tree. Used by Stephen for the verification gate and by every researcher for self-grading before handoff.
version	1.0.0

Evidence Grading

Global Five Over-Rules

1. Evidence before elegance. Never improve the story by weakening the evidence.
2. Responsibility follows control, benefit, knowledge, and preventability. Do not stop at the most visible actor.
3. Keep the taxonomy intact. Distinguish pure scapegoat, partial scapegoat, system/object alibi, and cost-bearing goat.
4. Steelman before judgment. Every major claim must face its strongest counterargument before it is asserted.
5. Handoff cleanly. Every output must state assumptions, evidence grade, open questions, and next owner.

Decision rubric

Walk every load-bearing claim through this tree in order:

1. Source type. What is the strongest source supporting this claim?

   • Court judgment / official inquiry / inspector general report / GAO / UN-ICC finding / statute / executive order / regulator finding / primary document / verbatim transcript / audited technical report → candidate A.
   • Major investigative journalism (with named sources or FOIA documents) / reputable NGO investigation / peer-reviewed scholarly article / expert forensic analysis / documentary record with partial access → candidate B.
   • Ongoing litigation / allegation / single-source report / unadjudicated claim / active conflict-zone event / cases with conflicting forensic claims → candidate C.
   • Viral claim / unsourced anecdote / partisan summary / rumor / emotionally satisfying but unverified story → D. Reject the claim; do not pass it to the next gate.

2. Corroboration count. How many independent sources support the claim?

   • 3+ independent sources at the candidate grade or better → confirm grade.
   • 2 independent sources → confirm grade only if both are primary/official; otherwise downgrade by one.
   • 1 source → downgrade by one grade unless the single source is a court judgment, formal admission, or audited primary document.

3. Procedural stage. Has the claim cleared the adjudicatory or institutional process that governs this claim type?

   • Final judgment / formal admission / regulator finding → confirm grade.
   • Charges filed but no judgment / DPA / settlement without admission → cap at B.
   • Allegation / preliminary examination / pre-charge investigation → cap at C until the stage advances.

4. Interested-source check. Is the strongest source financially or ideologically interested in the outcome?

   • Yes → downgrade by one grade unless independently corroborated by a non-interested source.
   • Document the interest in the source ledger row.

5. Live-event check. Is this an active event with the record still in flux?

   • Yes → cap at C regardless of source type. Flag the case as "live" in the ledger.

The final grade is the lowest grade emitted by any step above.

Conflict handling

1. Two A-sources disagree on a factual claim: Record both in the source ledger with provenance, downgrade the claim to B, and write a disputed-claim register entry. Do not silently pick one.
2. Source is interested but the only available source: Cap at C with an explicit "single interested source" note. Cannot anchor a chapter-level claim alone.
3. Procedural stage advances mid-sprint: Re-run the grading; if grade rises, update every artifact that cited the old grade.
4. Disagreement between researcher's proposed grade and Stephen's verdict: Stephen's verdict stands. Researcher logs the original proposal in the disputed-claim register for pattern-tracking across cases.

Escalation conditions

• Escalate to Alan (expert reviewer with the matching domain frame) when:
  • the procedural stage requires domain knowledge to interpret (e.g., ICC "preliminary examination" vs "investigation");
  • the source-type evaluation requires field-specific authority (system card analysis, accident-investigation methodology).
• Escalate to Nancy when the wording around an unconfirmed grade carries defamation risk.
• Escalate to Jerry when a chapter-anchor claim cannot reach A or B after one revision cycle and the chapter cannot proceed.

Boundary-case recipes

1. One A-source, one C-source, no B. Grade is B (the higher source pulls the average up one step), with the C-source noted as "weak corroboration only".
2. Two interested sources from opposing parties. Each is a primary source for the OTHER side's accusation. Grade as B with both interests documented; the claim cannot anchor a chapter without an independent third source.
3. Single primary document, never publicly released, leaked. Treat as C until at least one institutional source (regulator, court, official inquiry) confirms authenticity. Flag as "authenticity-pending".
4. Public admission inside a non-prosecutorial settlement (e.g., DPA with admitted facts). The admitted facts are A for the specific points admitted; surrounding context stays B/C per its own grading.

Output format

When emitting a grade, include all five tree results so Stephen can audit:

Claim:
Strongest source:
Source type: A | B | C | D
Corroboration count: <n> independent sources
Procedural stage:
Interested-source: yes | no
Live event: yes | no
Grade: A | B | C | D
Rationale: <one line>
Handoff:

Rules

• The chapter rule (per .claude/rules/02-evidence-grades.md): a chapter-level claim cannot rest only on C-grade evidence unless the chapter is explicitly about uncertainty or contested record control.
• A claim's grade can only be raised by adding sources or by an advancing procedural stage, never by editorial judgment.
• Every grade change must update the source ledger row and the disputed-claim register if applicable.

Context: Selina submits a Bucha civilian-harm case. Source ledger lists OHCHR report (A), ICC arrest warrant docket (A), Ukrainian Prosecutor General registry (A), Reuters wire (B), AP forensic team (B), Russian MoD statement (denied). input: claim="Russian forces killed N civilians in Bucha in March 2022" output: Strongest source: OHCHR report (A). Corroboration count: 3 independent A-sources for OHCHR-corroborated counts. Procedural stage: ICC arrest warrants issued (B-cap stage). Interested-source: no for OHCHR; yes for Russian MoD (excluded). Live event: yes — overall conflict ongoing but this incident has cleared institutional verification. Grade: A for OHCHR-corroborated counts, C for any single-source attributions of specific perpetrators. Handoff to Alan (IHL frame) for procedural-stage interpretation before chapter use. Context: A draft cites "Boeing executives knew about MCAS instability before the Lion Air crash." Only source is a Seattle Times investigative piece quoting FOIA'd emails plus the 2021 DOJ deferred prosecution agreement. input: claim="Boeing executives knew about MCAS instability before the Lion Air crash" output: Strongest source: DOJ 2021 DPA (A — formal admission). Corroboration count: 2 (DPA + Seattle Times). Procedural stage: DPA stage caps at B for non-admitted facts. Interested-source: no. Live event: no. Grade: **B**. The DPA admitted Boeing misled the FAA but did not specifically admit pre-crash internal knowledge by named executives. Rationale: the DPA's admitted facts support "Boeing misled the FAA"; "executives knew" requires the Seattle Times email evidence to carry weight that the DPA does not vouch for. Handoff to Nancy for safer wording: "Boeing has admitted to misleading the FAA per the 2021 DPA; FOIA'd emails reported by the Seattle Times suggest internal knowledge of MCAS issues before the first crash."