Methodology
What the platform preserves
Number type, resource category, beneficiary chain, section ownership, and unresolved limitations stay separate across the generated site.
Reviewer Portal
Review And Verify The Audit
This portal explains how to test the publication, how evidence is classified, how confidence is communicated, and how corrections are carried without weakening transparency.
How to verify the audit
Start from a section page, open its verification panel, then follow each claim into its source, decision, and open-question records. The platform is designed so readers can move from published prose to supporting evidence without changing the Version 1.0 conclusions.
Where the public record is incomplete, the platform keeps that incompleteness visible instead of filling it with modeled certainty.
Evidence Standards
Primary before secondary
Source records now label document type, primary or secondary classification, evidence class, confidence, and citation-verification status.
Confidence Model
Confidence is published, not implied
The platform preserves section confidence notes and source confidence labels so readers can distinguish direct evidence from corroboration and context.
How to submit corrections
Use the published corrections workflow to report source mismatches, broken trace links, missing metadata, or verified public records that should resolve an open question. Corrections should cite the exact page, claim, and source record involved.
Corrections are tracked in public release notes, version history, and changelog pages so the platform never hides what changed around the locked publication.
How corrections are tracked
Every release should record platform-level changes without silently rewriting Version 1.0 analytical conclusions. Decision history is preserved, open questions remain public, and unresolved URL verification is flagged explicitly.
Version history describes delivery milestones, changelog captures platform changes, and release notes summarize what shipped in each iteration.