Evidence Classification

Framework for categorising claims

Every piece of evidence in the research is tagged with a classification tier. This helps readers quickly assess the strength of any given claim and helps contributors understand what standard their submissions will be evaluated against.

Classification tiers

Tier	Label	Criteria	Example
1	Documented	Primary source, independently verifiable	Court filing, blockchain transaction, published email
2	Corroborated	Multiple independent sources align	Two witnesses independently confirm the same event
3	Disputed	Credible evidence exists on both sides	Craig Wright's claim to be Satoshi - supported by some witnesses, contradicted by forensic analysis
4	Unverified	Single source, not independently confirmed	An anonymous tip, a single witness statement without corroboration
5	Debunked	Conclusively disproven by stronger evidence	Backdated PGP keys presented as evidence of early Bitcoin involvement

How classifications are assigned

When a contributor submits research, they propose an evidence tier. During review, the editorial team may adjust the classification based on:

• The number and quality of sources

• Whether the sources are primary (original documents) or secondary (reporting on documents)

• Whether the claim has been contested and, if so, on what grounds

• Whether the evidence has been tested in an adversarial setting (e.g., court proceedings)

Living classifications

Evidence tiers are not permanent. As new information emerges, a claim can be reclassified. For example, a claim that was once "Corroborated" may be reclassified as "Disputed" if credible counter-evidence surfaces, or upgraded to "Documented" if primary sources become available.

All reclassifications are logged with a note explaining the change and linking to the new evidence.

Disputed evidence policy

The project does not suppress disputed evidence. Claims that are actively contested remain in the research base with the "Disputed" label, along with a summary of the arguments on both sides. The goal is to present the full picture and let readers evaluate the evidence for themselves.