Editing Aletheia:Article standards

'''Article standards''' are the working checklist for the Aletheia Knowledge Network. The goal is a claim a reader can inspect, contest, and improve.

== Minimum structure ==
* State the question narrowly, with jurisdiction, model, version, or test conditions where applicable.
* Link a primary source near each consequential factual statement. Identify what the source actually establishes and what is our inference.
* Present the strongest good-faith counterargument and explain the remaining uncertainty.
* State the conclusion and its limits in ordinary language. A compelling proposal is not an observed result.
* Add a dated status for prototypes, field reports, and evolving projects. Do not turn a stale plan into a current accomplishment.
* Link related pages and place the article in an appropriate category.

== Source hierarchy ==
For law, begin with the statute, regulation, court opinion, or official agency record; describe its jurisdiction and procedural setting. For engineering, prefer released source, schematics, reproducible measurements, and documented test conditions. For a field report, identify what was observed, by whom, when, and what was not tested. Secondary commentary can explain context but does not replace the underlying record. A source can be authentic and still fail to support a broad conclusion.

== Argument and counterargument ==
Summarize the best case for each serious interpretation before deciding. Explain why the evidence favors the conclusion, and name the observation or authority that would change it. Avoid treating the presence of two arguments as proof of equal evidentiary weight.

== Project claims ==
Use [[Methods & Corrections|status labels]] at the level of each claim. ''Concept'' and ''prototype'' are distinct; a field report is not independent certification. A published repository can contain documentation without a buildable implementation. Link a specific release only when its files, license, and scope are visible. Do not assert an organization, partnership, certification, or deployment that has not been confirmed.

== Safety and privacy ==
Remove credentials and personal data. An access-control or life-safety weakness needs a responsible disclosure and safety review before operational details are published. Describe the concern and evidence level without providing an exploit path. Mark legal, medical, and safety-critical material with scope and sources; do not offer a universal instruction where circumstances matter.

== Revision ==
Correct an error in the article, record material changes in [[Aletheia:Corrections log]], and preserve the reason and source in the edit summary. Use the talk page for an unresolved sourced objection. See [[Aletheia:Suggest a claim or correction]] for a submission format.

[[Category:Aletheia Knowledge Network]]