Original publication tool · v1.0

Source & Claim Review Record

Keep the original source, the claim being evaluated, its support, its contradictions, and its limits together from recovery through publication.

TerraEvidenceSource & Claim Review Record · v1.0 · August 2026

Review ID: ____________________

1. Record identity

Public record ID, if assigned

Review date

Reviewer

Version

Permanent archive ID, file name, page, or other historical identity

Working topic

2. Preserve the source

Capture enough information to recover exactly what was reviewed. Do not silently rewrite the source.

Original wording, result, observation, or claim

Author or institution

Publication or record date

Title and stable link, DOI, accession number, or archive location

Source type□ Primary study □ Review □ Institutional guidance □ Archive record □ Other

Accessed / recovered date

3. Classify before evaluating

Claim type□ Fact □ Observation □ Laboratory interpretation □ Supported interpretation □ Hypothesis □ Estimate □ Recommendation

Exact public claim being considered

Question this claim is intended to answer

Intended audience and decision, if any

4. Method and context

Country, region, climate, and setting

Soil, medium, crop, organism, or system

Treatment, comparison, or control

Replication and sample size

Measurement method, unit, basis, and timing

Duration and follow-up

Conditions that limit where the result may apply

5. Evidence review

What directly supports the claim?

Independent or converging evidence

Contradictory, null, negative, or less favorable findings

Alternative explanations and possible confounders

Missing information, uncertainty, and unresolved branches

6. Narrow the claim

What the evidence supports

What it does not establish

Source, scope, assumptions, uncertainty, and conditions that must stay visible

Falsification check — what evidence would weaken or overturn this statement?

7. Status and publication decision

Current evidence status□ Source preserved □ Developing / being evaluated □ Reviewed for stated scope □ Unresolved / conflicting □ Withheld from publication

Publication decision□ Publish bounded summary □ Revise and re-review □ Preserve privately □ Seek more evidence □ Reject current claim

Reason for the status and decision

Next review date or trigger

Reviewer / approver initials

8. Publication gate

□ Original wording and permanent archive identity remain preserved separately. □ The public claim is narrower than—or equal to—the evidence supporting it. □ Sources, methods, conditions, dates, and applicable settings remain visible. □ Contradictions, null results, negative findings, and alternative explanations are retained. □ Observation, hypothesis, estimate, interpretation, and recommendation remain distinct. □ Missing context is marked as missing rather than guessed. □ Scientific review is completed before commercial usefulness is considered. □ A revision path is recorded for stronger or contradictory evidence.

9. Revision history

Version / date	Evidence added or corrected	Claim or status change	Reviewer