1. Primary / authoritative source
Original records, official systems, executed agreements, primary datasets, direct source files, verified runtime/deployment records, or recognized authority documents where applicable. Authority is still scope-specific.
2. Qualified professional / recognized institution
Useful where competence, jurisdiction, and scope are verified. A professional source should not be stretched into authority outside the person's qualification or engagement.
3. Peer-reviewed or high-quality secondary source
Supports background, comparison, method, or synthesis when relevant and current. It does not automatically prove that meUus has implemented or validated the same result.
4. Reviewed internal synthesis
A structured internal report can reconcile many sources and guide decisions. It remains synthesis: its authority depends on the cited/recovered evidence and should not be described as raw source.
5. Participant / project-provided record
Important evidence of lived experience, intention, supplied facts, consent, or case context. It is not universal validation and may require corroboration for public factual claims.
6. Exploratory / unverified note
Useful for questions, hypotheses, ideas, and recovery leads. It must never be presented as settled knowledge merely because it appears in an old prompt, draft, AI output, or composite archive.
Composite archives need decomposition
Mixed containers can hold copied conversation, summaries, code, personal writing, corrections, future ideas, governance, and both public/private material. They must be separated by source, date, authority, sensitivity, and evidence class before reuse.
Reflection
Questions to sit with
- Is this raw evidence, a synthesis, or only a recovery lead?
- What date and scope limit its authority?
- What stronger source would change the confidence level?