Transparency Hub Pillar I — Forensic Foundation Public-Record Standards

Data Methodology & Evidence Standards

This is the umbrella index for every methodology page I publish. Each entry documents how a specific dataset or evidence record is built: the sources, the normalization rules, the scoring logic, and the quality-control procedure. If you cite our data, you should be able to audit how we produced it. That is the entire premise of this hub.

Umbrella Doctrine

Pillar I Made Visible

This hub is the flagship expression of the Andrade Method’s first pillar — the Forensic Foundation. Pillar I’s working premise is that liability positions hold up only when the underlying evidence can withstand defense scrutiny. A dataset nobody can audit fails that test. Publishing the methodology alongside the data is how we keep ours in a different category.

Every child page below follows the same discipline: named source categories, a written public-records request sequence where applicable, a normalization rule that excludes unsourced entries, a categorical scoring rubric that does not invent numeric precision, and a QC pass that distinguishes verified rows from pending ones.

Adjacent Resource Categories

Where Methodology Connects

Methodology pages sit inside a broader resource library. The adjacent categories below carry the forensic-foundation discipline into other evidence and preservation workflows.

Standards Snapshot

Evidence Standards We Apply

  • Named sources only. Every row ties to a retrievable public record, published report, or cited document.
  • No fabricated precision. Scoring rubrics are categorical where the underlying data is categorical.
  • Auditable QC. Verification rules are published alongside the data, not kept internal.
  • Living documents. When records change, dependent rows are re-run through the QC pass and the update is logged.
Maintained by:
Last updated:
Version: 1.0