How should a Truth Pack and reference truth be established, and how should the right answer be determined when evidence conflicts?

In plain language

Imagine checking the score of a match. One person's memory, an old screenshot and the official match record may disagree. First establish which match and date are meant, then find the record authorised and timely enough to show the score. If the records still conflict, do not guess.

Why this matters

Without a stable reference, one auditor may mark the same answer correct and another incorrect. Evidence that is outdated or belongs to the wrong entity may corrupt the entire measurement. Hiding uncertainty creates false confidence that truth was established.

Do not confuse

• A canonical statement is what an entity says on its own official surface; it is not necessarily independent verification.
• An authoritative record is a source empowered to decide or record a particular claim type.
• Independent evidence originates separately from the claimant but may still be wrong.
• Human judgement is the reasoned decision between sources; it does not replace those sources.
• UNRESOLVED states explicitly that evidence is insufficient or conflicting for a safe judgement.

What should you do?

1. Freeze the entity, claim types, time, geography and use context before the audit.
2. Split long descriptions into individually verifiable atomic claims.
3. For each claim, collect primary records, the canonical statement and any necessary independent evidence.
4. Preserve a source copy, access date, version, file hash and provenance relationship.
5. Assess conflicts through source authority, directness, recency, scope and independence.
6. Record the judgement, reasons and decision owner; use UNRESOLVED if no safe judgement is possible.
7. Version the Truth Pack and show which claim changed, and when, as reality changes.

How do you audit it?

• Was the Truth Pack built for the correct entity, scope and time?
• Does every material claim have a separate record and evidence link?
• Was a first-party statement presented as independent verification?
• Were provenance, version, validity date and integrity of sources preserved?
• Does the conflict decision follow predefined criteria and a recorded rationale?
• Did auditor preference or majority repetition replace evidence?
• Were unresolved cases marked UNRESOLVED rather than given false certainty?