Method: How These Filings Are Sourced

The point of this site is that you do not have to take my word for anything. Each filing attaches its sources and states its own limits, so a skeptical reader can follow the documents and decide for themselves. This page describes how that works in one place, so the essays do not have to keep re-explaining it.

The standard: if it can't be linked, it doesn't get stated as fact

Every public claim on this site needs a public, linkable source. That means one of four things: a news article, a court or bankruptcy document, an archived capture of a page that might change or disappear, or the subject's own published statement. If a claim cannot be tied to something a reader can open and read, it does not get stated as fact. It either gets cut, or it gets labeled as unverified and treated accordingly.

This is why the "Receipts · sources" block at the bottom of each filing is not decoration. It is the working part of the post. The argument lives in the body; the proof lives in the receipts.

Source grading: [P], [C], [X]

Not all sources carry the same weight, so claims are graded by the strength of what backs them.

• [P] — primary. The original document, filing, or statement itself: the bankruptcy docket, the acquisition press release, the company's own announcement, the archived page captured at a known timestamp. A primary source is the thing, not a description of the thing. When a filing says a company sold a platform for a specific dollar figure, the goal is to put the filing that says so directly in your hands.
• [C] — corroborated. A claim confirmed independently, usually because a primary document is paired with separate reporting that reaches the same fact, or because two unrelated sources line up. Where a number is inferred rather than officially disclosed, the inference and the sources behind it are shown, not hidden.
• [X] — unverified. Something that has been claimed but not confirmed. This is never asserted as fact. It is labeled as unverified every time it appears, and the filing says plainly what would be needed to move it. When a hacking crew lists a vendor on a leak site and the vendor has not commented, that is [X], and the post says "unverified" in the headline and the body rather than pretending it is settled.

The grades are the site's vocabulary for the same discipline the filings already practice in plain language: where the documents stop, the inferences start, and the post says which is which.

What I have not claimed

Every filing states the limits of its own argument. There is, in most posts, an explicit passage separating what the documents establish from what they do not. This is on purpose. It is the difference between a structural argument and an accusation.

So the filings say things like "alleged" and "unverified" when a claim has not been confirmed, and they say a situation is "an open question, not fraud" when the facts raise a fair question but do not prove wrongdoing. When a single firm owns both a platform and a publisher, the documented fact is the ownership structure; the post does not claim coordination it cannot evidence, and it says so directly. Drawing that line is not hedging. It is the argument staying honest about its own reach.

Corrections

Errors get fixed in the open. When a filing is wrong about something, it gets a dated correction line on the post itself, so the record shows what changed and when, rather than quietly editing the page as if the mistake never happened.

The homepage line "0 retracted" is a standard, not a boast. It describes the bar every filing is built to clear, not a trophy. If a filing ever has to be retracted, that line changes, because the count is supposed to be true. Corrections are welcome. If you can show a claim here is wrong, write to the byline address and bring the source; a correct record is the entire point.

No sponsors, no tracking

There is nothing here trying to sell you anything or follow you around. No sponsors, no affiliate links, no kickbacks, no upsell, and no analytics or ad tracking. Nobody is paying for placement, so nothing is shaded to keep them happy.

The site stores exactly one thing about visits: an anonymous page-view count, meaning a path and a tally and nothing else. It does not store or transmit IP addresses, cookies, user agents, referrers, timestamps, or sessions, and no third party is involved in the count. The only third-party data flow on the entire site is the newsletter form, and only if you choose to use it. If you never type your email into it, no third party hears from you at all.

That is the whole method. Public sources, graded honestly, with the limits stated and the errors fixed in daylight. If a filing here ever fails that standard, it is a bug, and you should tell me.