Curated sources
7
Published entries
Research and contested claims
Follow the evidence, keep its limits
This source register connects claims about compute, power, water, local effects and shared opportunity to original research, methods and guidance within their stated boundaries.
It does not give sources a reputation score or turn disagreement into a popularity contest. A claim is reviewed against its own wording, place, period, units, method and evidence. Funding or advocacy is recorded when verified, but neither proves nor disproves a finding.
Claims in context
4
Published reviews
Source register
7 curated source entries have passed the publication gates.
scenario evidence
United States Data Center Energy Usage Report: 2025 Update
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · Published 18 June 2026 · Checked 5 October 2026
Question it helps answer: What does this public model estimate about US data-centre electricity use, and which assumptions shape its range?
Scope: United States data-centre electricity use across servers, storage, networking and facility infrastructure. Cryptocurrency mining is excluded.
Limit: It does not establish electricity demand, water use, emissions, grid impact, planning status, local costs, consent or delivered benefits for a particular site. It is not a global estimate or a commitment that a scenario will occur.
scenario evidence
Key Questions on Energy and AI
International Energy Agency · Published 16 April 2026 · Checked 5 October 2026
Question it helps answer: What does the IEA's current global model say about the direction of data-centre electricity demand, and which adoption, efficiency and infrastructure assumptions shape its cases?
Scope: Global and regional analysis of data-centre electricity demand, power supply, constraints, affordability and selected uses of AI in energy. It covers all data-centre workloads when modelling facility electricity, then separately analyses AI-focused infrastructure where the evidence permits.
Limit: It cannot establish the electricity or water demand, grid effect, planning merits, price effect, construction stage, community view or delivered benefit of a particular project. Its cases are not commitments, and global or regional results do not resolve a local decision.
guidance source
Cooling Water Efficiency Opportunities for Federal Data Centers
U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program · Publication date not recorded · Source page updated: not recorded · Checked 2026-10-31
Question it helps answer: Does an internal closed-loop label alone determine water consumption?
Scope: Selected text about internal liquid-cooling loops and final heat rejection.
Limit: A named site’s actual water, indirect footprint, peak electricity load or net saving.
guidance source
24/7 Hourly Matching of Electricity
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · Publication date not recorded · Source page updated: 2025-12-12 · Checked 2026-10-31
Question it helps answer: What does annual matching establish compared with hourly/regional matching?
Scope: Annual-volume matching and hourly/regional matching as described by EPA.
Limit: A named PPA’s performance, local carbon intensity, congestion, additionality or zero emissions.
modelled evidence
UK Export Finance: Economic impacts of our support 2024 to 2025
UK Export Finance · Published 2025-07-17 · Source page updated: not recorded · Checked 2026-10-31
Question it helps answer: How do FTEs, headcount and job-years differ when employment support is reported?
Scope: Sections 5 and 6.2 only: how estimated supported employment is measured.
Limit: Actual hiring, a permanent-post conversion, data-centre construction employment or a transferable local multiplier.
guidance source
The MHCLG Appraisal Guide: employment-method scope
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government · Publication date not recorded · Source page updated: 2026-02-18 · Checked 2026-10-31
Question it helps answer: Which boundaries matter before calling estimated jobs net additional local employment?
Scope: Employment paragraphs 6.22 to 6.25: local/national effects, additionality and locally appropriate multipliers.
Limit: A particular project’s staff count, jobs realised, FTE conversion or model multiplier.
modelled evidence
Energy Consumption in Data Centres and Broadband Communication Networks in the EU
European Commission Joint Research Centre · Published 2024-02-16 · Checked 2026-10-31
Question it helps answer: How was EU electricity use estimated when national data were incomplete?
Scope: EU-27 data-centre and telecommunications-network electricity use, treated separately.
Limit: Does not establish current demand, site performance, grid-queue positions, connection rights or available compute; not a forecast.
Before a source appears here, the record must preserve all of these fields. Unknown metadata stays unknown rather than being filled by inference.
- slug
- title
- publisher
- original url
- publication date
- data period
- scope
- method
- evidence type
- assumptions
- uncertainty
- funding interests
- reuse terms
- checked on
- related question
- cannot establish
What kind of evidence is it?
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Measured | An observation recorded with a stated method, place and period. |
| Modelled | An estimate produced from inputs and a model rather than direct observation alone. |
| Scenario | A conditional result showing what could follow from stated assumptions. |
| Forecast | A prediction about a future period, with uncertainty and a time horizon. |
| Commitment | A dated undertaking by a named party, not evidence that delivery occurred. |
| Opinion | An attributed interpretation or position, not a measured result. |
| Guidance | Recommendations or a method description, not an empirical observation or modelled outcome by itself. |
Claims in context
4 claim reviews have been published.
supported within stated bounds
DOE/FEMP describes a direct liquid-cooling arrangement in which a closed internal water loop passes heat onward to a cooling tower.
- slug
- closed-loop-label-water-boundaries
- claim
- DOE/FEMP describes a direct liquid-cooling arrangement in which a closed internal water loop passes heat onward to a cooling tower.
- attribution
- U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program technical guidance; independently worded account of the cited section.
- claim date
- Original publication date not established in the inspected HTML. The date displayed beneath an illustration is not assigned to this claim.
- scope
- Whether a cooling-system label alone settles a water conclusion. This is not a verdict on Cambois, another project, measured water use or a particular cooling design.
- original evidence
- DOE/FEMP: Direct Liquid Cooling Systems section (Method and source context)
source notice: Source copyright and any applicable third-party rights are retained. Minimal independently worded attributed facts and ordinary unframed links only. No copied passages, figures, tables, model inputs, images, databases or broad source-use grant; no endorsement. No open licence is asserted unless separately identified for the exact component.
- DOE/FEMP: Direct Liquid Cooling Systems section (Method and source context)
- supporting evidence
No supporting-evidence recorded.
- counter evidence
No counter-evidence recorded.
- method differences
- Separate internal heat transfer from final heat rejection, site water from electricity-related water, and annual energy from peak electrical demand.
- finding
- supported within stated bounds
- reason
- The technical text describes this arrangement as one variant. It supports that limited description, not zero site water or an observed whole-site footprint. The source alone does not quantify indirect water, net savings, electricity peaks or a universal trade-off.
- unresolved questions
- The actual heat-rejection design, climate, operating data, electricity source and timing remain needed for a named site. No peak-load, litres-per-task or total-water conclusion is admitted.
- checked on
- 2026-10-31
- reuse terms
- Not recorded
- licence url
- Not recorded
- source notice
- Source copyright and any applicable third-party rights are retained. Minimal independently worded attributed facts and ordinary unframed links only. No copied passages, figures, tables, model inputs, images, databases or broad source-use grant; no endorsement. No open licence is asserted unless separately identified for the exact component.
- attribution notice
- Not recorded
- derived work notice
- Not recorded
- funding interests
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- A bounded engineering description is not an empirical comparison of every cooling design. No additional supporting or contrary source is recorded for this exact assertion.
Dossier publication record
This is ComputeFinder's editorial record. Its checked on date retains the scoped claim-evidence check; adding this representation does not perform a new source or editorial check. Unknown publication dates and dossier-specific interests remain unrecorded, separately from the cited sources.
- slug
- closed-loop-label-water-boundaries
- title
- Closed loops and cooling-water boundaries
- publisher
- ComputeFinder
- original url
- https://computefinder.net/research/claims/closed-loop-label-water-boundaries
- publication date
- Not recorded
- data period
- Selected engineering guidance; no measured site period or common water/electricity comparison window is established.
- scope
- Whether a cooling-system label alone settles a water conclusion. This is not a verdict on Cambois, another project, measured water use or a particular cooling design.
- method
- Bounded editorial review of the recorded original, supporting and counter-evidence citations, with separate measurement definitions, a scoped finding and unresolved questions. This is not a systematic evidence review or an empirical site study.
- evidence type
- editorial_review
- assumptions
- The described cooling arrangement is a system variant. Internal heat transfer, final heat rejection, site water, electricity-related water and peak electrical load require separate boundaries.
- uncertainty
- A bounded engineering description is not an empirical comparison of every cooling design. No additional supporting or contrary source is recorded for this exact assertion. The dossier’s editorial publication date and dossier-specific funding/interests declaration are not recorded. Null interests do not mean that none exist. checked_on repeats the retained scoped claim-evidence check; it is not a new editorial metadata or source check.
- funding interests
- Not recorded
- reuse terms
- CC BY 4.0 applies only to ComputeFinder-owned original dossier wording and compilation rights. Cited third-party sources retain their own exact notices, attribution, reuse terms and exclusions; no source licence or endorsement is inherited.
- checked on
- 2026-10-31
- related question
- Does an internal closed-loop label determine a data centre’s water consumption or electrical demand?
- cannot establish
- The actual heat-rejection design, climate, operating data, electricity source and timing remain needed for a named site. No peak-load, litres-per-task or total-water conclusion is admitted.
supported within stated bounds
UKEF explains that its estimated supported jobs are full-time equivalents rather than headcount, and that support across periods can be expressed as job-years.
- slug
- job-years-fte-and-headcount
- claim
- UKEF explains that its estimated supported jobs are full-time equivalents rather than headcount, and that support across periods can be expressed as job-years.
- attribution
- UK Export Finance, Economic impacts of our support 2024 to 2025, sections 5 and 6.2; independently worded methodological account.
- claim date
- 17 July 2025, the displayed publication date; this is not a data-centre hiring event.
- scope
- The report’s employment-measurement definitions only. No UKEF model outcome, multiplier, forecast or employment result is transferred to a data centre or local planning application.
- original evidence
- UKEF report: limitations and full-time-equivalent definition (Method and source context)
source notice: Crown copyright 2025, UK Export Finance. The government publication expressly states OGL v3.0 except identified third-party material. Minimal original attributed methodological facts and ordinary links only; no numerical results, worked examples, figures, tables, model inputs or third-party content copied. No endorsement or data-centre employment inference.
- UKEF report: limitations and full-time-equivalent definition (Method and source context)
- supporting evidence
- Separate additionality context, not verification of UKEF results: MHCLG employment guidance 6.22-6.25 (Method and source context)
source notice: Crown copyright 2026, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The HTML publication expressly states OGL v3.0 except identified third-party content. Original brief account of employment-method guidance only; no illustrations, model tables or third-party content. No endorsement.
- Separate additionality context, not verification of UKEF results: MHCLG employment guidance 6.22-6.25 (Method and source context)
- counter evidence
No counter-evidence recorded.
- method differences
- FTEs standardise working hours, headcount counts people and job-years aggregate employment across periods. Local additional employment also needs its own counterfactual and population. These measures cannot be silently substituted for one another.
- finding
- supported within stated bounds
- reason
- The original method distinguishes hour-standardised employment from people and period aggregates. This supports reading the units separately; it does not demonstrate realised hiring or provide a permanent-post conversion for a construction total.
- unresolved questions
- A named data-centre planning case still needs independently reviewed construction periods, direct and indirect roles, operational staffing and local additionality assumptions. No project forecast or multiplier is admitted.
- checked on
- 2026-10-31
- reuse terms
- Minimal attributed original account of the selected Crown government methodology under the publication’s express OGL v3.0 notice, with source/licence links and third-party exclusions.
- licence url
- Read the licence
- source notice
- Crown copyright 2025, UK Export Finance. The government publication expressly states OGL v3.0 except identified third-party material. Minimal original attributed methodological facts and ordinary links only; no numerical results, worked examples, figures, tables, model inputs or third-party content copied. No endorsement or data-centre employment inference.
- attribution notice
- Not recorded
- derived work notice
- Not recorded
- funding interests
- UKEF is the government issuer reporting on its own support. This provenance does not independently validate its model. MHCLG is a separate government appraisal-guidance issuer.
- uncertainty
- This dossier establishes a measurement distinction, not actual data-centre employment. The separate construction-versus-permanent planning case remains unfinished.
Dossier publication record
This is ComputeFinder's editorial record. Its checked on date retains the scoped claim-evidence check; adding this representation does not perform a new source or editorial check. Unknown publication dates and dossier-specific interests remain unrecorded, separately from the cited sources.
- slug
- job-years-fte-and-headcount
- title
- Job-years, headcount and local employment claims
- publisher
- ComputeFinder
- original url
- https://computefinder.net/research/claims/job-years-fte-and-headcount
- publication date
- Not recorded
- data period
- Selected employment-measurement methods; no construction or permanent data-centre staffing period is admitted.
- scope
- The report’s employment-measurement definitions only. No UKEF model outcome, multiplier, forecast or employment result is transferred to a data centre or local planning application.
- method
- Bounded editorial review of the recorded original, supporting and counter-evidence citations, with separate measurement definitions, a scoped finding and unresolved questions. This is not a systematic evidence review or an empirical site study.
- evidence type
- editorial_review
- assumptions
- Headcount, full-time equivalents, job-years, direct and indirect employment and local additionality remain distinct measures.
- uncertainty
- This dossier establishes a measurement distinction, not actual data-centre employment. The separate construction-versus-permanent planning case remains unfinished. The dossier’s editorial publication date and dossier-specific funding/interests declaration are not recorded. Null interests do not mean that none exist. checked_on repeats the retained scoped claim-evidence check; it is not a new editorial metadata or source check.
- funding interests
- Not recorded
- reuse terms
- CC BY 4.0 applies only to ComputeFinder-owned original dossier wording and compilation rights. Cited third-party sources retain their own exact notices, attribution, reuse terms and exclusions; no source licence or endorsement is inherited.
- checked on
- 2026-10-31
- related question
- What can a job-year or full-time-equivalent estimate establish about permanent local data-centre jobs?
- cannot establish
- A named data-centre planning case still needs independently reviewed construction periods, direct and indirect roles, operational staffing and local additionality assumptions. No project forecast or multiplier is admitted.
supported within stated bounds
EPA distinguishes annual-volume electricity matching from hourly matching that normally considers the same region as consumption.
- slug
- annual-matching-hourly-local-power
- claim
- EPA distinguishes annual-volume electricity matching from hourly matching that normally considers the same region as consumption.
- attribution
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 24/7 Hourly Matching of Electricity; independently worded account of its explanatory definitions.
- claim date
- Original publication date not established. The page states last updated 12 December 2025; that update is not treated as a new procurement event.
- scope
- What annual-volume matching alone establishes compared with hourly and regional matching. This is not an emissions audit or assessment of any named PPA, grid or project.
- original evidence
- EPA: annual-volume and hourly/regional definitions (Method and source context)
source notice: Source copyright and any applicable third-party rights are retained. Minimal independently worded attributed facts and ordinary unframed links only. No copied passages, figures, tables, model inputs, images, databases or broad source-use grant; no endorsement. No open licence is asserted unless separately identified for the exact component.
- EPA: annual-volume and hourly/regional definitions (Method and source context)
- supporting evidence
No supporting-evidence recorded.
- counter evidence
No counter-evidence recorded.
- method differences
- Annual volume, hourly timing, procurement location, actual grid supply, location-based carbon intensity and congestion each need their own evidence.
- finding
- supported within stated bounds
- reason
- The inspected definitions support this distinction. They do not establish a named buyer’s hourly matching, local carbon intensity, actual power delivery or congestion outcome.
- unresolved questions
- A named case still needs load and generation timestamps, certificate/contract boundaries, geography and relevant grid evidence. No congestion, additionality or zero-emissions outcome is inferred.
- checked on
- 2026-10-31
- reuse terms
- Not recorded
- licence url
- Not recorded
- source notice
- Source copyright and any applicable third-party rights are retained. Minimal independently worded attributed facts and ordinary unframed links only. No copied passages, figures, tables, model inputs, images, databases or broad source-use grant; no endorsement. No open licence is asserted unless separately identified for the exact component.
- attribution notice
- Not recorded
- derived work notice
- Not recorded
- funding interests
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- The source is an explanatory EPA page, not measured hourly data. Its displayed update date is 12 December 2025; market conditions are not freshly generalised.
Dossier publication record
This is ComputeFinder's editorial record. Its checked on date retains the scoped claim-evidence check; adding this representation does not perform a new source or editorial check. Unknown publication dates and dossier-specific interests remain unrecorded, separately from the cited sources.
- slug
- annual-matching-hourly-local-power
- title
- Annual matching and hourly local electricity
- publisher
- ComputeFinder
- original url
- https://computefinder.net/research/claims/annual-matching-hourly-local-power
- publication date
- Not recorded
- data period
- Selected procurement definitions; no measured hourly electricity, emissions or transmission-congestion period is admitted.
- scope
- What annual-volume matching alone establishes compared with hourly and regional matching. This is not an emissions audit or assessment of any named PPA, grid or project.
- method
- Bounded editorial review of the recorded original, supporting and counter-evidence citations, with separate measurement definitions, a scoped finding and unresolved questions. This is not a systematic evidence review or an empirical site study.
- evidence type
- editorial_review
- assumptions
- Annual volume, hourly timing, location, physical grid supply and grid effects require separate evidence.
- uncertainty
- The source is an explanatory EPA page, not measured hourly data. Its displayed update date is 12 December 2025; market conditions are not freshly generalised. The dossier’s editorial publication date and dossier-specific funding/interests declaration are not recorded. Null interests do not mean that none exist. checked_on repeats the retained scoped claim-evidence check; it is not a new editorial metadata or source check.
- funding interests
- Not recorded
- reuse terms
- CC BY 4.0 applies only to ComputeFinder-owned original dossier wording and compilation rights. Cited third-party sources retain their own exact notices, attribution, reuse terms and exclusions; no source licence or endorsement is inherited.
- checked on
- 2026-10-31
- related question
- What does annual renewable-electricity matching establish about hourly local power and grid effects?
- cannot establish
- A named case still needs load and generation timestamps, certificate/contract boundaries, geography and relevant grid evidence. No congestion, additionality or zero-emissions outcome is inferred.
supported within stated bounds
Company accounts describe a SWE04/Långsele development agreement and commercial negotiations; these sources do not establish delivered heat.
- slug
- swe04-langsele-heat-development
- claim
- Company accounts describe a SWE04/Långsele development agreement and commercial negotiations; these sources do not establish delivered heat.
- attribution
- atNorth and Calentix report their own project-development arrangements. The atNorth blog is a joint party account; Calentix describes its own project, not independent corroboration.
- claim date
- Publication and agreement-signature dates are not established. November 2026 is the period stated by Calentix for its project position, not an invented event day.
- scope
- The proposed first-phase district-heating connection associated with atNorth SWE04 and Långsele in Sollefteå municipality. Other atNorth sites and a possible later Sollefteå network phase are separate.
- original evidence
- Calentix: atNorth SWE04/Långsele project account, November 2026 position
source notice: Minimal independently worded party-attributed facts and ordinary unframed original links only. Source copyright remains with its owners; no open source-content licence, copied text, imagery, chart, pipeline/database import or recurring acquisition grant. Publication, update, agreement-signature, retrieval and immutable-version metadata remain unestablished. The inspected accounts are party statements, not independent engineering or delivered-benefit verification.
- atNorth and Calentix: why heat reuse starts with planning
source notice: Minimal independently worded party-attributed facts and ordinary unframed original links only. Source copyright remains with its owners; no open source-content licence, copied text, imagery, chart, pipeline/database import or recurring acquisition grant. Publication, update, agreement-signature, retrieval and immutable-version metadata remain unestablished. The inspected accounts are party statements, not independent engineering or delivered-benefit verification.
- Calentix projects: named SWE04/Långsele listing
source notice: Minimal independently worded party-attributed facts and ordinary unframed original links only. Source copyright remains with its owners; no open source-content licence, copied text, imagery, chart, pipeline/database import or recurring acquisition grant. Publication, update, agreement-signature, retrieval and immutable-version metadata remain unestablished. The inspected accounts are party statements, not independent engineering or delivered-benefit verification.
- Calentix: atNorth SWE04/Långsele project account, November 2026 position
- supporting evidence
No supporting-evidence recorded.
- counter evidence
No counter-evidence recorded.
- method differences
- A Project Development Agreement concerns development work, not a Heat Purchase Agreement or investment decision. Feasibility, commercial negotiations, finance and actual heat delivery are distinct. No quantities, capacity totals or modelled benefits are combined.
- finding
- supported within stated bounds
- reason
- The parties report a development agreement. Calentix labels the named project commercial negotiations in November 2026, with heat price, land access, grid terms and co-funding still under negotiation. Calentix leads project development; atNorth would provide heat access and site interfaces. These inspected accounts do not demonstrate a completed heat-purchase agreement, investment/financing decision or heat delivery.
- unresolved questions
- Look for separately usable evidence of the exact first-phase heat-purchase agreement, investment and financing decisions, and ultimately commissioned or delivered heat. The responsible project parties are Calentix and atNorth within their stated roles. Any later Sollefteå network connection is a distinct possible phase. No verified next-decision day or delivered local consequence is supplied here.
- checked on
- 2026-11-06
- reuse terms
- Not recorded
- licence url
- Not recorded
- source notice
- Minimal independently worded party-attributed facts and ordinary unframed original links only. Source copyright remains with its owners; no open source-content licence, copied text, imagery, chart, pipeline/database import or recurring acquisition grant. Publication, update, agreement-signature, retrieval and immutable-version metadata remain unestablished. The inspected accounts are party statements, not independent engineering or delivered-benefit verification.
- attribution notice
- Not recorded
- derived work notice
- Not recorded
- funding interests
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- The original publication and agreement-signature dates are unknown. The November 2026 project period does not date every underlying event. No independent technical, network-operator or delivered-benefit confirmation is recorded; an empty counter-evidence list means none is recorded, not that none exists.
Dossier publication record
This is ComputeFinder's editorial record. Its checked on date retains the scoped claim-evidence check; adding this representation does not perform a new source or editorial check. Unknown publication dates and dossier-specific interests remain unrecorded, separately from the cited sources.
- slug
- swe04-langsele-heat-development
- title
- SWE04 and Långsele: development agreement and negotiations
- publisher
- ComputeFinder
- original url
- https://computefinder.net/research/claims/swe04-langsele-heat-development
- publication date
- Not recorded
- data period
- The Calentix project account labels its position November 2026. This is a source-described period, not a publication day, agreement-signature day or observed heat-delivery date.
- scope
- The proposed first-phase district-heating connection associated with atNorth SWE04 and Långsele in Sollefteå municipality. Other atNorth sites and a possible later Sollefteå network phase are separate.
- method
- Bounded original-wording review of named company accounts and their precise source-use conditions. Distinguish project-development and negotiation statements from purchase agreements, investment decisions, financing and delivered heat.
- evidence type
- editorial_review
- assumptions
- Statements by atNorth and Calentix describe their own project. A joint account is not two independent corroborators. No physical-heat measurement or benefit calculation is imported.
- uncertainty
- Publication, update, signature, retrieval and immutable-source-version metadata are not established. This source-scoped review cannot establish whether later events occurred. The editorial publication date and dossier-specific funding/interests declaration remain unrecorded; null interests do not mean none exist.
- funding interests
- Not recorded
- reuse terms
- CC BY 4.0 applies only to ComputeFinder-owned original dossier wording and compilation rights. Cited sources retain their own rights and precise use conditions; no source licence or endorsement is inherited.
- checked on
- 2026-11-06
- related question
- What has the SWE04/Långsele heat project reached, and which evidence would distinguish negotiations from delivered local heat?
- cannot establish
- A signed Heat Purchase Agreement, final investment decision, secured financing, construction, heat delivery, measured environmental benefit, current data-centre capacity or available compute. Unknown is not proof that an event never occurred.
A review keeps the exact claim and attribution, its original evidence, date and scope, relevant supporting and counter-evidence, material differences in methods, the reason for the finding and the questions that remain unresolved.
| Finding | What it means |
|---|---|
| Supported within stated bounds | The cited evidence supports the claim only within its recorded scope and conditions. |
| Partly supported | Some material parts are supported and other parts are not established. |
| Unsupported by the supplied source | The supplied source does not establish the claim as worded. |
| Contradicted by cited evidence | Relevant cited evidence conflicts with the claim within comparable boundaries. |
| Unresolved | The available evidence does not support a responsible conclusion yet. |
Checks before publication
- Read the original study, dataset or official document, not only a report about it.
- Record geography, data period, units, system boundary, method, assumptions and uncertainty.
- Separate direct measurement from models, scenarios, forecasts, commitments and opinions.
- Look for independent corroboration and relevant counter-evidence without manufacturing equal weight.
- Check funding, interests and reuse terms only from evidence that actually states them.
- Explain what the source cannot establish, especially when a sector estimate is discussed beside a local proposal.
- Keep the item in review until the exact-use source check, factual checks and the required independent review are complete.
Use this with project evidence
Research can frame a question, but it does not automatically establish conditions at one site. Use the community questions guide to build a local case file, the data centre records for project evidence, the method for publication rules and corrections to supply better public evidence.
Method published 4 October 2026. Review by 4 January 2027. Discovery leads are not counted as curated entries or reviewed claims.