How this works.

What gets recorded

Anyone may register their own prediction. Third-party records — statements registered about someone else — are limited to public figures and organizations speaking publicly on matters of public concern. We do not record third-party statements by private individuals, and we do not score private individuals under any circumstances.

Every record must quote its source exactly. The wording is checked mechanically against the response the platform itself returned; a quote the source does not contain is refused rather than reviewed. How that check works.

How a record can settle

What can be resolved depends on what was said. Forcing everything onto one scale is how accountability projects end up manufacturing false precision. Every record shows one of three resolution methods — the same labels used across the site:

“Preserved” is enforced in code: the system refuses to attach resolution criteria to a statement whose own words carry no objective test. A number that looks precise but isn’t is worse than no number.

The words we use for outcomes

Outcomes describe evidence, never character. We do not publish “lied,” “broken promise,” or an honesty score for a person. A record moves through exactly one public lifecycle — the same words shown on every card and page:

• Open — the deadline has not arrived, or settlement is still running.
• Condition met / Condition not met — the locked test, evaluated against its named source. A statement about evidence, not about a person.
• Could not be determined — the evidence does not settle it either way.
• Unresolvable — the test could not be executed as written.
• Preserved — not scored — no test existed and none was invented.

Historical records — added after their outcome was already known — carry the same lifecycle words prefixed by their label, are always identified as retrospective, and are excluded from pre-outcome track records.

Disputes

Anyone can dispute a record or a resolution. The person a record is about gets a priority lane — being able to answer on your own record is the fairest part of this design.

Disputes must cite something specific: a misquote, a wrong date, a misattributed source, a resolution the evidence doesn’t support. Disagreeing with what someone said is not grounds — the record is that they said it.

That a dispute exists is public the moment it is filed. The claim text is published when it is reviewed, not on filing: an open submission box whose contents are instantly permanent and anchored would be a way to publish abuse through us.

Corrections

We will get things wrong. When we do, the original record is not edited — the correction is appended, the original stays visible, and both are anchored. You can always see what we said before, what changed, and why.

A project that quietly fixed its mistakes would be asking you to trust that there weren’t any. The permanent trail is the point.

Mirror the manifest

The public completeness manifest at /api/v1/export contains record IDs, evidence fingerprints, the archive digest and recomputation instructions. That digest is committed to the blockchain in every anchor batch, and individual visible records remain publicly inspectable one by one. Bulk record text, source data, entity graphs, enrichment and resolution datasets are licensed separately.

If you keep a copy and a record later disappears, your copy and the anchored digest will disagree with ours — provably, without needing our cooperation. Third parties holding copies is the only real answer to “you could quietly drop the records you don’t like.”

We cannot make anyone do this, and as far as we know nobody has yet. Until someone independent holds a copy, the guarantee is a promise rather than a proof. If you are a journalist, researcher or archivist reading this: mirroring costs you one HTTP request and turns our word into something you can check.