---
title: "Altss Evidence & Provenance Standard | Altss Frameworks"
description: "The Altss standard for recording evidence behind private-markets facts: claim-level provenance, evidence chains, three separate evidence dimensions…"
canonical: "https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/evidence-and-provenance-standard"
---

Standard · Version 1.2 · Last reviewed 2026-10-01

# Altss Evidence & Provenance Standard

The Altss standard for recording evidence behind private-markets facts: claim-level provenance, evidence chains, three separate evidence dimensions (evidence origin, derivation status, validation status), distinct date types, null states such as unknown vs not disclosed, negative evidence, conflicts and claim citation.

Publisher: Altss LLCContent modified 2026-10-01

LIB-02

Image: Abstract illustration: a network of glowing points and connecting lines on deep blue.

Altss editorial illustration. AI-generated and decorative; it does not show data.

## 1. Purpose

This standard defines what counts as evidence for a fact about a private-markets organisation, fund, person, commitment or transaction, and what must be recorded about that evidence. Its central rule is that provenance belongs to each claim, not to a record or a page. A profile can hold one fact taken from a regulatory filing last quarter, another from the organisation's own website, and a third derived from both. Each needs its own source, its own dates and its own labels, because each can be right or wrong independently.

Every held value is described on three separate dimensions: what kind of source stated it (evidence origin), how the value was produced (derivation status), and what checking the claim has passed, as of when (validation status). The three answer different questions and are never merged into one label. This three-dimension model is Altss methodology, defined for this reference system. It is not an industry standard; section 12 states the standards it draws on.

The standard also fixes the vocabulary that keeps evidence honest: which date means what, how "we don't know" differs from "they don't say" and from "it is zero", and how an absence is reported.

## 2. Scope

**In scope**

- Factual claims about entities and events in private markets: identity attributes, roles, relationships, commitments, fund terms, reported figures, dated events.

- The record of evidence behind each claim, from the source document to the published value.

- Source types, evidence chains, the three evidence dimensions (evidence origin, derivation status, validation status), the independence test, date types, null states and negative evidence.

- The format in which a claim and its evidence are cited.

**Out of scope**

- How reliable a source is and how confident a claim is. Reliability is graded as a property of the source, and confidence labels are assigned, under the [Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/source-reliability-and-confidence-methodology). That methodology uses the three dimensions defined here as inputs and does not redefine them.

- Whether two records describe the same entity: see the [Entity Resolution Methodology](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/entity-resolution-methodology).

- Valid time, transaction time and freshness in depth: see the [Temporal Data & Freshness Methodology](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/temporal-data-and-freshness-methodology). This standard defines the date types; that methodology defines how they are used.

- Citation of sources for general statements in research and reference content (definitions, regulation, market facts): see the [Research Citation Standard](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/research-citation-standard).

- The legal right to collect or reuse a source. Source rights, collection method and validation are separate questions. This standard records the collection method as process metadata (5.3) and defines validation status (6.7); it does not decide rights.

## 3. Definitions

**3.1 Terms**

- **Claim.** A single statement about a subject: subject + attribute + value, with qualifiers. "Example Pension Plan's target allocation to private credit is 5% of total plan assets, as of its 2025 investment policy" is one claim.

- **Subject.** The entity, relationship or event the claim is about. For a claim about a commitment, an appointment or another act between parties, the subject is the party whose act or attribute the claim states: the investor, for "Investor X committed to Fund Y"; the employer, for an appointment it made.

- **Attribute.** The property being stated (legal name, role, commitment amount, fund size, effective date of an appointment).

- **Value.** What the claim asserts, with its unit, currency and scale.

- **Qualifier.** Anything that changes the meaning of the value: the definition used (for example regulatory assets under management as defined by a form, rather than a firm's marketing figure), the scope (one fund or all funds), gross or net, the currency date.

- **Source.** A publisher or record-keeper that states something: a regulator's database, a court, a company, a newspaper.

- **Source artefact.** The specific document or record examined: a filing with its accession number, a web page at a URL, an annual report, a dataset row.

- **Capture.** The act of retrieving a source artefact and keeping a fixed copy or fingerprint of what was retrieved, with the time of retrieval.

- **Pinpoint.** The location inside an artefact that supports the claim: item number, page, table, paragraph.

- **Evidence item.** One link between a claim and an artefact: the artefact, the pinpoint, the capture, the extraction that read the value, and the artefact's evidence origin for that claim (6.6).

- **Evidence chain.** The path from a published claim back through every intermediate source to the earliest reachable originating source of the information. See evidence chain.

- **Originating source.** The first source in an evidence chain that had direct knowledge of the fact (the filer, the party to the transaction, the body that made the decision). It is a point in a chain. It is not the same thing as evidence origin, which classifies the artefact examined.

- **Independent evidence items.** Evidence items that pass the independence test of 6.8: neither was copied or derived from the other, and their chains do not reach a common originating source or other common upstream source.

- **Collection method.** How an artefact was found or obtained. It is recorded separately, with the evidence item, as process metadata (5.3) and is not an evidence-origin value.

- **Provenance record.** Everything recorded about how a claim came to be held: its evidence items with their evidence origins, the value's derivation status, the claim's validation status and validation date, its other dates and its history. See [data provenance](https://altss.com/glossary/data-provenance) and [source attribution](https://altss.com/glossary/source-attribution).

- **Validation date.** The date on which a claim version's current validation status was assigned (6.7). For RESEARCH_VALIDATED it is the date the review was completed; this is the date shown as "entity verified".

- **Null state.** The recorded reason a value is absent (section 6.3).

**3.2 The three evidence dimensions (Altss methodology)**

Every held value is described on three dimensions. Each answers a different question and is recorded in its own field. No value of one dimension is used as a value of another: "estimated" is never an evidence origin, and "disclosed" is never a validation status. No display merges the three into one label. Section 6 sets the rules for assigning each value.

| Dimension | Question it answers | Recorded on | Values |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

| A. Evidence origin | What kind of source stated it? | each evidence item (one claim–artefact link) | REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD, OFFICIAL_INSTITUTIONAL, DISCLOSED, OSINT_SOURCED, LICENSED_THIRD_PARTY |

| B. Derivation status | How was the value produced? | the value | OBSERVED, DERIVED, ESTIMATED |

| C. Validation status | What checking has the claim passed, as of when? | the claim version, with its validation date | UNVERIFIED, CORROBORATED, RESEARCH_VALIDATED, CONFLICTING |

**A. Evidence origin.** Display labels in brackets.

- **REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD** (Regulatory / public record). The artefact is a filing to, or a record kept by, a regulator, statutory registry or court, retrieved from that body's own system.

- **OFFICIAL_INSTITUTIONAL** (Official institutional source). The artefact is an official publication of a public body or public-sector institution, issued in its official capacity and not as a filing to a regulator.

- **DISCLOSED** (Disclosed). The artefact is the subject's own publication, or a statement attributable to the subject, and neither value above applies.

- **OSINT_SOURCED** (OSINT-sourced). The artefact is publicly accessible and was published by a party other than the subject, and none of the values above applies.

- **LICENSED_THIRD_PARTY** (Licensed / third-party source). The artefact was obtained under licence, or by private communication, from a party other than the subject, and is not publicly accessible.

**B. Derivation status.** Display labels: Observed, Derived, Estimated.

- **OBSERVED.** The value is stated in a source artefact.

- **DERIVED.** The value is computed from observed values by a stated, deterministic rule, including a classification made under a published rule.

- **ESTIMATED.** The value is inferred where no source states it and no deterministic rule produces it.

**C. Validation status.** Always stated with its validation date. Display labels: Unverified, Corroborated, Research-validated, Conflicting.

- **UNVERIFIED.** The claim is held on its evidence as captured, with no independent support and no completed review. This is the default status of a new claim version. It is not a finding against the claim; it records that no further check has been passed.

- **CORROBORATED.** The claim is supported by at least two independent evidence items (6.8), and no contradiction of it is unresolved.

- **RESEARCH_VALIDATED.** A named reviewer completed a deliberate check of the claim against evidence on a recorded date and confirmed it.

- **CONFLICTING.** Two or more evidence items assert incompatible values for the same attribute, under the same qualifier and for the same effective period, and the conflict is unresolved (section 7).

## 4. Inputs and source types

A source is described on three descriptive axes. One artefact can sit at several points on them, and the description must say which. The axes describe the source. The evidence-origin value of 6.6 is the single classification recorded on each evidence item; 4.5 shows how the two relate.

**4.1 Proximity to the fact**

- **Primary source.** Produced by a party with direct knowledge of the fact, at or near the time: the fund's own filing, a pension board's minutes recording a commitment vote, a company's announcement of its own appointment. See [primary source](https://altss.com/glossary/primary-source).

- **Secondary source.** Reports or interprets a primary source: a news article about the commitment, an industry report summarising filings. See secondary source.

- **Copy or compilation.** Repeats a primary or secondary source without independent access to the fact: a directory listing, an aggregator profile, a syndicated copy, a machine-generated summary. A copy or compilation may help locate the originating source; it is not evidence on its own.

**4.2 Form of the record**

- **Regulatory filing.** A document submitted to a regulator or registry under a legal obligation, in a prescribed form: for example [Form ADV](https://altss.com/glossary/form-adv), Form D, Form 13F, an annual return to a companies registry. See regulatory filing. A filing is authoritative for what the form requires the filer to state, as the form defines it, at the date the form specifies.

- **Public record.** A record a public body creates or keeps and makes available: board and committee minutes of a public pension plan, a court docket, a procurement notice, a registry entry. See public record.

- **Publication.** Any other published statement: an annual report, a press release, a web page, an article, a research paper.

- **Statement on request.** Information given in answer to a direct question, including a correction or submission from the organisation concerned.

**4.3 Interest of the source**

- **Self-reported.** The subject reports on itself: a manager's own website, a fund's marketing figure, an organisation's submission. Regulatory filings are self-reported too; they differ from other self-reports because they are made under a legal duty and in a defined form. See self-reported data.

- **Third-party.** A party other than the subject reports: a counterparty, a regulator acting on its own findings, a journalist.

**4.4 What is not a source**

- Output of a language model or other generative system. A model can help find, read or summarise an artefact; the artefact is the evidence, and the model's output is not.

- A page whose content derives from the record it would be used to support, including Altss's own published pages. Citing them back as evidence is circular.

- An undated, unattributed statement that cannot be traced to a publisher. It can prompt research; it cannot support a claim.

**4.5 From the axes to evidence origin.** Evidence origin (6.6) is assigned from the form of the record, the interest of the source and whether the artefact is publicly accessible: a filing or registry record retrieved from the body that keeps it is REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD, a public body's official publication is OFFICIAL_INSTITUTIONAL, a self-report is DISCLOSED, a public third-party publication is OSINT_SOURCED, and non-public third-party material is LICENSED_THIRD_PARTY. Proximity is not part of the origin value. It is recorded in the evidence chain, and it bears on independence (6.8) and on the source's authority under the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology.

## 5. Method

**5.1 The unit of provenance is the claim.** Every published claim has its own provenance record. A record-level or page-level source list does not satisfy this standard, because it cannot say which source supports which value.

**5.2 Every published claim has at least one evidence item.** A claim with no evidence item is a hypothesis. It is not published as a fact. It may be held for research, labelled as unsupported.

**5.3 Minimum content of an evidence item.** Each evidence item records:

- the source, its description on the axes of section 4, and the artefact's evidence origin for this claim (6.6);

- an identifier that resolves to the artefact (a URL, a filing accession number, a registry number, a document title with date and publisher);

- the pinpoint;

- the artefact's own dates where they exist (filing date, publication date, and the as-of date of the value);

- the capture date, and a fixed copy or fingerprint of the captured artefact sufficient to show later what it said;

- the collection method (how the artefact was found or obtained) and the extraction method: manual, automated, or assisted by software including AI models, and, where a person reviewed the extraction, the review and its date. Neither is an evidence-origin value;

- the exact value as stated in the source, before any normalisation, alongside the normalised value.

**5.4 Cite what was read.** An evidence item names the artefact that was actually examined. If a news article reports that a filing exists, and the filing itself was not examined, the evidence item is the article, not the filing, and its evidence origin is that of the article. Naming an artefact that was not read is a fabricated citation.

**5.5 Trace to the originating source.** For each claim, the evidence chain is followed back as far as it can be reached. Where the originating source is reachable, it is captured and becomes an evidence item in its own right, with its own evidence origin. Where it is not, the chain records the last reachable link and states that the originating source was not examined.

**5.6 Keep the stated value.** The value is recorded as the source states it, with its unit, currency, scale, definition and as-of date. Normalisation (currency conversion, unit scaling, mapping a label onto a controlled vocabulary) produces a second, derived value that points back to the stated one. Normalisation never overwrites the stated value.

**5.7 Record all three dimensions.** Every evidence item carries an evidence origin (6.6). Every value carries a derivation status (6.1). Every claim version carries a validation status with its validation date (6.7). Each is recorded in its own field. A value whose derivation status cannot be stated is not published. No display merges the three into a single label, and no value of one dimension is used as a value of another.

**5.8 Derived values inherit.** A derived value records the claims it was computed from and the rule used, with the rule's version. Its as-of date is the earliest as-of date among its inputs. If any input is ESTIMATED, the derived value is ESTIMATED. A derived value is never more current than its oldest input. A DERIVED or ESTIMATED value has no evidence origin of its own: its origins are the set of evidence origins of its input claims, and they are shown as that set.

**5.9 Estimates show their method.** An estimated value states how it was produced and, where the method yields one, a range. An estimate is never displayed in the form used for an observed value, and is never used as an input to an observed value.

**5.10 Record absences explicitly.** A missing value carries a null state (section 6.3). A blank field with no null state is read as UNKNOWN.

**5.11 Negative evidence is scoped and dated.** An absence claim ("no record found") states what was searched, by what identifier or query, and when. Section 6.4 sets the rules.

**5.12 Never overwrite; supersede.** When a claim changes (a new filing, a correction, a restatement), the new claim version is added and the earlier version is kept with its evidence and marked as superseded, with the date and reason. The history of what was held, and when, is part of the provenance record. See [audit trail](https://altss.com/glossary/audit-trail).

**5.13 AI-assisted extraction.** Where software, including an AI model, reads a value out of an artefact, the evidence item points to the artefact and the pinpoint the software used, and records that the extraction was machine-assisted. The value is subject to the same evidence requirements as a manual extraction. Where a person reviews the extraction, the review is recorded on the evidence item with its date and outcome. An extraction review confirms that the value was read correctly from the pinpoint; it does not by itself set a validation status. The claim becomes RESEARCH_VALIDATED only when a reviewer checks the claim as a whole against the evidence (6.7, rule 4). A machine-assisted value whose extraction has not been reviewed is labelled as such where its review state is shown.

**5.14 Payment does not create evidence.** A commercial relationship with the subject, or any payment, does not change a claim's evidence, evidence origin, derivation status, validation status, dates or confidence. A submission from a subject is DISCLOSED, like any other statement by the subject, and is assessed like one.

## 6. Classification rules

Sections 6.1, 6.6 and 6.7 assign the three dimensions of section 3.2. Sections 6.2 to 6.5 cover definitional differences, null states, negative evidence and dates. Section 6.8 is the independence test used by 6.7 and section 7.

**6.1 Derivation status of a value.** See also observed, derived and estimated data.

| Derivation status | Definition | Required provenance | Example |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

| OBSERVED | The value is stated in a source artefact. | At least one evidence item with a pinpoint. | A fund's total offering amount as stated in its Form D. |

| DERIVED | The value is computed from observed values by a stated, deterministic rule, including a classification made under a published rule. | The input claims and the rule, with its version. | [TVPI](https://altss.com/glossary/tvpi) computed from reported paid-in capital, distributions and NAV. |

| ESTIMATED | The value is inferred where no source states it and no deterministic rule produces it. | The method, the inputs and, where possible, a range. | An organisation's headcount range inferred from a staff directory. |

Derivation status describes how the value was produced, not what kind of source stated it. A value read from a news article is OBSERVED with evidence origin OSINT_SOURCED; a value read from a Form ADV retrieved from the SEC's system is OBSERVED with evidence origin REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD.

**Retired display labels.** Version 1.0 of this standard allowed an OBSERVED value to be displayed as FILED or REPORTED. Those sub-labels are retired, because they placed the kind of source inside the derivation status. They are now expressed on two dimensions:

| Former label | Expressed as |
| --- | --- |

| FILED | Derivation status OBSERVED + evidence origin REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD |

| REPORTED | Derivation status OBSERVED + evidence origin DISCLOSED, or OFFICIAL_INSTITUTIONAL where a public body reports on its own acts. A value that version 1.0 labelled REPORTED from a third party's publication is OBSERVED + OSINT_SOURCED. |

A classification (for example "this organisation is a [single-family office](https://altss.com/glossary/single-family-office)") is a judgement made under a published classification rule. It is recorded as DERIVED, with the rule and the observed claims it rests on as its inputs.

**6.2 Definitional differences are separate attributes.** Where an attribute is defined by a filing (regulatory assets under management on Form ADV, for instance), the filed value is recorded under that definition. A different figure from another source (a marketing "assets under management" figure) is a separate claim with its own qualifier, not a competing value for the same attribute. Comparing them is a definitional question before it is a conflict (section 7). Neither claim is CONFLICTING.

**6.3 Null states.** See also unknown, not disclosed and not found.

| State | Meaning | Evidence required | Must never be shown as |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

| UNKNOWN | No determination has been recorded. | None. | zero, "none", "not found" or "not disclosed" |

| NOT FOUND | The stated sources were searched on a stated date and held no evidence for the value. | Search scope, identifiers or queries used, date. | "does not exist" or zero |

| NOT DISCLOSED | A source that would be expected to carry the value was examined and the value is omitted or expressly withheld by the subject. | The artefact in which it is omitted, with date. | UNKNOWN or zero |

| NOT APPLICABLE | The attribute does not apply to this kind of subject. | The classification that makes it inapplicable. | UNKNOWN or zero |

| ZERO (held zero) | A source states, or a deterministic rule yields, a value of zero. | An evidence item like any observed or derived value. | a blank |

| WITHHELD | A value is held but not published, for legal, privacy or licensing reasons. | The internal record of the reason. | NOT FOUND or UNKNOWN |

Three rules follow. First, zero is a value and needs evidence; it is never inferred from silence. Second, absence of a validation date means that validation status is unknown: it does not mean the claim was never checked, and it does not mean it was (6.7). Third, a null state is not a validation status: NOT FOUND records a search, not a failed check of a claim.

**6.4 Negative evidence.** See also negative evidence. Three kinds are distinguished:

- **Explicit negative statement.** A source states that something is not the case or has ended ("X has left the firm", "the fund did not hold a final close"). This is an OBSERVED claim of a negative fact and is recorded like any other observed claim, including its effective date if stated.

- **Scoped absence.** A search of stated sources found nothing. This supports the null state NOT FOUND for that scope and date only. It never supports a claim that the thing does not exist, it never sets an end date on an earlier positive claim, and it never makes that claim CONFLICTING.

- **Disappearance.** A source that previously stated a claim no longer does (a name removed from a team page, a fund no longer listed on a manager's site). This is evidence that the source changed. It closes the claim's last-observed date and may trigger a recheck. It does not by itself establish that the fact ended or when, and it does not make the claim CONFLICTING.

**6.5 Date types.** Dates describe different events and are never substituted for one another. See [evidence dates](https://altss.com/glossary/evidence-dates).

| Date | Belongs to | Records | Does not mean |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

| Effective date (valid from / to) | the claim | when the fact began or ceased to be true in the world | when anyone learned of it |

| As-of date | the stated value | the date at which the source states the value (for example a fiscal year end) | the filing or publication date |

| Filing date | the artefact | when the artefact was submitted to a regulator or registry | the as-of date of its contents |

| Publication date | the artefact | when the source made the artefact public | when the fact occurred |

| Capture date (source captured) | the artefact | when the artefact was retrieved and fixed | that any fact in it was true on that date |

| First and last observed (fact observed) | the claim | the capture dates of the earliest and latest artefacts that state the claim | that the fact was true throughout, or only, between them |

| Validation date (entity verified) | the claim version | when its current validation status was assigned; for RESEARCH_VALIDATED, when the review was completed, shown as "entity verified" | that other claims on the same record were checked, or that the fact is still true |

| Recorded date | the claim version | when this version of the claim entered the record (transaction time) | when the fact occurred |

| Page modified | the published page | when page content changed | that any fact on the page was observed or validated then |

| Aggregate measured | a population statistic | when a count, rate or coverage figure was measured | that each member was checked on that date |

**6.6 Evidence origin of an evidence item.** Evidence origin is assigned to the artefact actually examined (5.4), relative to the claim's subject, by the first definition in 3.2 that matches, in order 1 to 5. See also [OSINT](https://altss.com/glossary/osint) and public record.

| # | Evidence origin | Examples | Not this |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

| 1 | REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD | Form ADV, Form D or Form 13F retrieved from the SEC's systems; a filing retrieved from a national companies registry; a legal entity identifier record retrieved from the GLEIF database; a court docket | A news story about a filing: OSINT_SOURCED until the filing itself is retrieved |

| 2 | OFFICIAL_INSTITUTIONAL | Public pension board minutes and meeting packages; state treasury or audit-office reports; government gazettes; a sovereign wealth fund's statutory annual report | A public institution's marketing page or a quote it gave to a journalist (rule 3 or 4) |

| 3 | DISCLOSED | The subject's website, annual report, press release or investor letter; a statement the subject gave on request, recorded with the communication | A third party's description of the subject (rule 4) |

| 4 | OSINT_SOURCED | News reporting; a counterparty's announcement (a manager's release naming an investor, for the investor's claim); event programmes; staff and professional directories; archived copies of third-party pages | A regulatory filing retrieved from the regulator's system (rule 1) |

| 5 | LICENSED_THIRD_PARTY | A licensed commercial dataset; a non-public document supplied by a counterparty with permission | Anything publicly accessible (rules 1 to 4) |

Rules:

- **Precedence.** The first matching rule decides. A public pension plan's own board minutes are OFFICIAL_INSTITUTIONAL, not DISCLOSED, although the plan is the subject. A manager's Form ADV retrieved from the SEC's system is REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD, not DISCLOSED, although the manager wrote it.

- **Relative to the claim.** Origin belongs to the link between a claim and an artefact, so one artefact can carry different origins for different claims. A manager's release announcing a final close is DISCLOSED for the claim "Fund Y held a final close" and OSINT_SOURCED for the claim "Investor X committed to Fund Y".

- **Retrieval route for filings.** Rule 1 applies only to an artefact retrieved from the regulator's, registry's or court's own system. A copy of a filing obtained elsewhere is classified by rules 2 to 5: DISCLOSED if the subject published it, OSINT_SOURCED if a third party published it, LICENSED_THIRD_PARTY if it came in a licensed dataset.

- **Several items, several origins.** A claim with several evidence items has several origins. A display lists them all. It never selects one silently.

- **Derived and estimated values.** A DERIVED or ESTIMATED value has no origin of its own. Its origins are the set of origins of its input claims (5.8).

- **Collection method is separate.** The collection method is recorded separately as process metadata and is not an origin value. In its general meaning, open-source intelligence covers every publicly accessible source, filings and official publications included. The origin field separates rules 1 and 2 from rule 4 because they carry different accountability: a filing is made under a legal obligation and an official publication under a public body's authority; a third party's article is neither.

- **Origin is not truth, weight or validation.** A filing is still the subject's own account: REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD says where it was filed, not that it is true. Origin is not a reliability grade, which is a property of the source assessed under the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology, and it is not a validation status (6.7). Two items with different origins are not thereby independent (6.8).

**6.7 Validation status of a claim.** Validation status is assigned to each claim version, using the definitions in 3.2, and is stated with its validation date. See also [last verified](https://altss.com/glossary/last-verified) and [source triangulation](https://altss.com/glossary/source-triangulation).

| Validation status | Required record |
| --- | --- |

| UNVERIFIED | The date the status was assigned, which is no earlier than the claim version's recorded date. It is the default for a new claim version. |

| CORROBORATED | The independent evidence items (6.8) and the independence basis: why their chains do not share an originating source. |

| RESEARCH_VALIDATED | The reviewer and their role, the review date, the evidence examined and the outcome. |

| CONFLICTING | The competing values, each with its evidence items; handled under section 7. |

Rules:

- **Precedence.** Where more than one status applies, the claim takes the first in this order: CONFLICTING, RESEARCH_VALIDATED, CORROBORATED, UNVERIFIED. A CORROBORATED claim that a reviewer then confirms is RESEARCH_VALIDATED, and its count of independent evidence items stays in the record. A new evidence item that contradicts a RESEARCH_VALIDATED or CORROBORATED claim, and passes the pre-checks of 7.1, makes the claim CONFLICTING until the conflict is resolved by review (7.3).

- **Dating.** A validation status is always stated with its validation date. It describes the evidence at that date and is not permanent. For RESEARCH_VALIDATED the validation date is the date the review was completed; this is the "entity verified" date. A claim with no validation date has an unknown validation status: it is read neither as UNVERIFIED nor as validated.

- **Single-source validation.** RESEARCH_VALIDATED can rest on one source: a reviewer can confirm a claim against the filing that states it. It does not imply CORROBORATED. The number of independent evidence items is recorded separately and is shown wherever validation status is shown.

- **What a review checks.** A review checks the claim as a whole against the evidence: that the artefact concerns this subject, that the attribute, qualifier and as-of date are read correctly, and that the value matches the source at the pinpoint. Checking only the transcription of a value is an extraction review (5.13). It is recorded on the evidence item and does not by itself make the claim RESEARCH_VALIDATED.

- **Derived and estimated values.** For a DERIVED or ESTIMATED value, validation covers its inputs and the correct application of the rule or method. Validation never changes derivation status: a RESEARCH_VALIDATED estimate is still ESTIMATED.

- **Scope.** Validation attaches to the claims checked. A review of one attribute does not change the validation status or date of other claims on the same record.

- **Claim versions.** Validation attaches to a claim version. A superseding version (5.12) starts at UNVERIFIED unless its own evidence or a review supports another status. The superseded version keeps the status and date it held.

- **Definitional differences.** Two values that differ only in definition, such as a marketing assets-under-management figure and regulatory assets under management on Form ADV, are different attributes (6.2). Neither is CONFLICTING.

- **What validation status is not.** It is not a confidence label and not a probability that the claim is true. The Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology uses it as one input to confidence. It says nothing about how reliable a source is; reliability is graded as a property of the source.

**6.8 Independence of evidence items.** Two evidence items are independent only if all of these hold:

- neither states the claim on the basis of the other;

- their chains do not reach the same originating source (one press release, one filing, one interview, one dataset);

- they are not copies, translations or syndications of one text;

- neither relies on a third source that the other also relies on for this claim.

Signals that items are not independent include identical wording or quotes, the same figures with the same rounding, publication within a short window after a single announcement, and attribution to the same release. Where independence cannot be established, the items are treated as one originating source.

Different evidence origins do not establish independence. A subject's Form ADV (REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD) and the same subject's website (DISCLOSED) reach one originating source, the subject, for facts only the subject supplies. Corroboration of such a fact needs a different party with its own knowledge of it: a counterparty, a regulator acting on its own findings, the other side of the transaction. The record of a CORROBORATED claim states its independence basis: which items are independent and why.

## 7. Conflict handling

**7.1 Check that the conflict is real.** Before evidence items are treated as conflicting, each of the following is checked, in order:

- **Subject.** Are both about the same entity, or about two related ones (a fund and its manager, a pension plan and its sponsor)?

- **Definition.** Do both use the same definition of the attribute (regulatory AUM vs a marketing AUM figure, gross vs net, committed vs called)?

- **Time.** Do both have the same as-of date or effective period? A 2023 figure and a 2025 figure are two points in a series, not a conflict.

- **Unit and scale.** Same currency, same currency date, same scale (thousands vs millions)?

- **Independence.** Do both trace to the same originating source (6.8)? If so they are one piece of evidence, and any difference is a transcription error in one of them. The error is corrected against the originating source; the claim does not become CONFLICTING.

- **Compatibility.** Are the values incompatible? Two values are incompatible when both cannot be true under the shared qualifier: different figures at the precision both state, or ranges that do not overlap. A figure inside a stated range, or "$4.2 billion" beside "$4,210 million", is compatible.

Most apparent conflicts dissolve at one of these steps. The result is two correctly qualified claims, or one claim with two consistent evidence items, and nothing is CONFLICTING.

**7.2 A real conflict is recorded, not resolved by overwriting.** Where evidence items assert incompatible values for the same subject, attribute, qualifier and effective period, each competing value is kept with its evidence items, and the claim's validation status is set to CONFLICTING, dated when the contradicting item was recorded. CONFLICTING takes precedence over every other status (6.7): a claim that was CORROBORATED or RESEARCH_VALIDATED becomes CONFLICTING. Conflicting values are never averaged, and a display shows the competing values with their evidence rather than choosing one silently. See source conflict.

**7.3 A conflict is resolved by review.** A conflict is resolved only by a review that records which value is preferred and why, applying the preference order of the [Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/source-reliability-and-confidence-methodology), or by a correction that supersedes one of the values (7.4). After the review the claim takes the preferred value and is RESEARCH_VALIDATED as of the review date. The evidence items for the other value stay attached to the claim, marked as not preferred with the reason, and that value is not shown as current. If the review cannot separate the values, the claim stays CONFLICTING and the review is recorded. If later evidence reverses a preference, the history shows both decisions.

**7.4 A correction is a new claim version.** A correction by the party that made the original statement (a subject correcting its own statement, a filer's amended filing, a restated figure) supersedes the earlier claim version under 5.12. It is not a conflict. The superseded version and its evidence remain in the history. A statement by one party that contradicts a record made by another is a conflict and is handled under 7.2.

## 8. Confidence and limitations

- Provenance shows where a claim came from. It does not make the claim true. A faithfully recorded claim from a wrong source is still wrong.

- A filing is authoritative only for what the form requires, as the form defines it. A fund-size figure in a filing is the figure as defined by that form on that date; it is not a general statement of the fund's size at any other date.

- Self-reported sources, including filings, reflect the subject's own account. A claim supported only by the subject, however many artefacts state it, has one originating source and is not CORROBORATED (6.8).

- Validation status records what checking a claim has passed, as of a date. It is not a confidence label and not a probability that the claim is true. Confidence is assigned under the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology.

- RESEARCH_VALIDATED confirms a claim against the evidence the reviewer examined. If that evidence is wrong, the claim can be wrong and still validated. A single-source validation is read with its count of independent evidence items.

- Independence can be hidden. Two items can share an originating source that neither names. A CORROBORATED status is only as good as the independence basis recorded for it.

- A fixed copy or fingerprint of a captured artefact shows what the artefact said when captured. It does not show what it said before or after.

- A long evidence chain loses information at each link. The further the examined source is from the originating source, the more the claim depends on intermediaries having transcribed it correctly.

- Recording a null state of NOT FOUND is only as strong as the search that supports it. A narrow search supports a narrow absence.

## 9. Temporal rules

- Every observed value carries the as-of date the source gives it. Where the source gives none, the as-of date is recorded as unknown, and the publication or filing date is recorded separately; the publication date is not substituted.

- Date precision is kept as stated. A year-only date ("2019") is recorded as a year, not padded to a full date.

- The capture date of an artefact never becomes the effective date of a fact in it.

- A page's modified date never implies that a fact on the page was observed, captured or validated on that date. A content edit cannot imply fact verification.

- A validation date is attached to the claims actually checked. A review of one attribute does not change the validation status or date of other attributes on the same record.

- A validation status is read as of its validation date. It does not carry forward to a later claim version (6.7), and it does not say that the fact is still true.

- A population-level measurement date applies to the aggregate statistic only.

- Valid time, transaction time, point-in-time reconstruction and freshness are governed by the [Temporal Data & Freshness Methodology](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/temporal-data-and-freshness-methodology).

## 10. Edge cases

- **Amended filings.** An amendment supersedes the original for the facts it changes. Both are kept. The amendment's filing date is not the as-of date of facts it did not change.

- **Exhibits and attachments.** A press release attached to a filing is still a press release; its authority is that of its author, not of the filing that carries it. Retrieved from the regulator's system, its evidence origin is REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD, which records where it was found. How much weight it carries for a claim is a question of the source's authority under the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology.

- **Copies of filings obtained elsewhere.** A filing downloaded from a third party's website or received in a licensed dataset is not REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD until the same filing is retrieved from the regulator's or registry's own system (6.6, rule 3).

- **Syndicated and translated copies.** A wire story republished by many outlets is one source and one originating source; the copies are not independent evidence items (6.8). A translation is a copy of the original; the original is cited where it can be reached.

- **Archived copies.** A copy of a page held by a web archive is evidence of what the page said at the archive's capture time. Its capture date is the archive's, and is recorded as such. Its evidence origin is that of the page it preserves: DISCLOSED for the subject's own page, OSINT_SOURCED for a third party's page. The archive is recorded as the collection method.

- **Statements given privately by the subject.** A statement the subject gives on request, by email or in a call, is DISCLOSED, not LICENSED_THIRD_PARTY, although it is not public. It is recorded with the communication.

- **Deleted sources.** If a source is removed after capture, the captured copy remains evidence of what it said. The removal is itself recorded as a disappearance under 6.4.

- **Values expressed as ranges.** A source stating a range ("between $100 million and $250 million") is recorded as a range. It is not converted to a midpoint, which would be a DERIVED value with its own label.

- **"Up to" and target figures.** A fund's target size, hard cap and final close size are three different attributes, not three values of one.

- **Mixed records.** A record combining values with different derivation statuses, evidence origins and validation statuses shows each value's three dimensions separately. A record is never labelled with a single derivation status, origin or validation status.

- **Facts about people.** Claims about natural persons follow the same rules, with additional limits on what is collected and published that are set by privacy law and policy, not by this standard.

## 11. Worked examples

**Example 1: a filed figure with full provenance (illustrative).**

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |

| Subject | Example Advisers LLC (adviser record) |

| Attribute | Regulatory assets under management, as defined in Form ADV |

| Stated value | "$4,210,000,000" |

| Normalised value | 4.21 billion USD |

| Qualifier | Regulatory AUM per the form's definition, discretionary and non-discretionary combined |

| As-of date | the date the filing gives for the figure; if the filing gives none, recorded as unknown, with the filing date kept separately (section 9, rule 1) |

| Evidence item | Form ADV Part 1A, the item reporting regulatory AUM; filing date; capture date; fixed copy |

| Evidence origin | REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD (retrieved from the SEC's system) |

| Derivation status | OBSERVED |

| Extraction | Machine-assisted |

| Validation status | RESEARCH_VALIDATED, dated the day a researcher checked the subject, attribute, as-of date and value against the filing; one independent evidence item |

The marketing figure "over $5 billion" on the adviser's website is a second claim: attribute "assets under management (self-described)", evidence origin DISCLOSED, derivation status OBSERVED, validation status UNVERIFIED, a different qualifier and an unknown as-of date. The two are not in conflict and neither is CONFLICTING; they measure different things (6.2).

**Example 2: an evidence chain.** Three articles report that an endowment committed $50 million to a buyout fund. All three quote the same sentence. Tracing each one back (rule 5.5) shows they derive from one press release issued by the fund manager.

| Evidence item | Evidence origin for this claim | Position in the chain |
| --- | --- | --- |

| Article 1, 2, 3 | OSINT_SOURCED | Copies of the release, not independent (6.8) |

| Manager's press release | OSINT_SOURCED: the claim's subject is the endowment, whose act it states, and the manager is a counterparty (6.6, rule 2) | Originating source |

Derivation status OBSERVED. One originating source, so validation status UNVERIFIED: the claim has four evidence items but not two independent ones. A report published by the endowment itself would be a second item, DISCLOSED, from a different party with its own knowledge of the commitment. With it, the claim would be CORROBORATED.

**Example 3: a derived multiple.** A fund's quarterly report states paid-in capital of 80, cumulative distributions of 40 and NAV of 76 (millions, same as-of date). Each is an OBSERVED claim with evidence origin DISCLOSED. TVPI is derived as (40 + 76) / 80 = **1.45x**, DPI 40 / 80 = **0.50x**, RVPI 76 / 80 = **0.95x**. Each multiple is DERIVED. It has no origin of its own; its origins are those of its three inputs (DISCLOSED). Its validation status is UNVERIFIED until a review checks the inputs and the formula, and RESEARCH_VALIDATED after that review. If the NAV had been an analyst estimate of 60 rather than a reported value, the TVPI of **1.25x** would be ESTIMATED, not DERIVED (rule 5.8), and a review would not change that (6.7, rule 5).

**Example 4: three kinds of absence.** For a single-family office, "assets under management" is NOT DISCLOSED when the office's own published materials, examined on a stated date, describe its activities but give no AUM figure. Its allocation to infrastructure is ZERO only if a source states that it holds none. Its legal entity identifier is NOT FOUND if the global LEI database was searched by legal name and jurisdiction on a stated date with no result. Each is a different statement and is shown differently.

**Example 5: disappearance.** A managing director appears on a manager's team page in captures dated in January and April and is absent from a July capture. The role claim's last-observed date is April. No end date is set, and the claim does not become CONFLICTING; its validation status and date stay as they were. A recheck is triggered; if a later filing or announcement states that the person left on a given date, that statement is an explicit negative claim and supplies the end date.

**Example 6: citing a claim.** A claim and its evidence are cited in this order: subject; attribute; value with unit; as-of date; derivation status; validation status with its date; source (publisher, artefact title or form type, identifier or URL, pinpoint, filing or publication date) with its evidence origin; capture date. For instance: "Example Fund III, L.P. — total offering amount — USD 300,000,000 — as stated in Form D filed [filing date] — OBSERVED — UNVERIFIED as of [date] — SEC EDGAR, Form D, accession [number], offering-amount field (REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD) — captured [date]." A reader who cites a published Altss record should cite the specific record URL, the specific claim, and the underlying source with its date.

**Example 7: a conflict and its resolution (illustrative).** A companies-registry record, retrieved from the registry's system, gives an investment manager's date of incorporation as 14 March 2011. A review on date R1 confirmed the claim. Later, the manager's annual report, which states its company number, is captured; it says the company was incorporated in 2012.

|  | Registry record | Annual report |
| --- | --- | --- |

| Value asserted | 2011-03-14 | 2012 (year precision) |

| Evidence origin | REGULATORY_PUBLIC_RECORD | DISCLOSED |

| Derivation status | OBSERVED | OBSERVED |

Pre-checks (7.1): same entity, matched on its company number; same attribute and definition; a fact that does not change over time; the year 2012 does not overlap the date 14 March 2011, so the values are incompatible. The claim's validation status moves from RESEARCH_VALIDATED (R1) to CONFLICTING, dated when the annual report was recorded. A review on date R2 applies the preference order of the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology: the registry is authoritative for incorporation. The claim keeps 2011-03-14 and is RESEARCH_VALIDATED as of R2. The annual-report item stays attached, marked not preferred, with the reason. Had the report said "began operations in 2012", pre-check 2 would have separated two attributes and nothing would have been CONFLICTING.

## 12. External references

**W3C PROV-O.** This standard is aligned with the W3C PROV Ontology (PROV-O), the W3C Recommendation for representing provenance. The mapping is:

| This standard | PROV-O |
| --- | --- |

| Claim; source artefact | prov:Entity |

| Capture; extraction; derivation; review | prov:Activity (the artefact or claim prov:wasGeneratedBy it; an extraction or review prov:used the artefact) |

| Publisher; researcher; reviewer; software agent | prov:Agent (prov:wasAttributedTo, prov:wasAssociatedWith) |

| Capture date | prov:generatedAtTime of the captured artefact |

| Derived value | prov:wasDerivedFrom its input claims |

| Originating source of a restated fact | prov:hadPrimarySource |

| Quoted text | prov:wasQuotedFrom |

| Superseding claim version | prov:wasRevisionOf the earlier version |

**Where it differs.** PROV-O records the history of records and the activities that produced them. It does not model when a fact was true in the world (valid time), the null states of 6.3, or the three evidence dimensions of 3.2. This standard adds those as qualifiers on the claim and its evidence items.

**Source and information grading.** Intelligence practice grades a source's reliability and an item's credibility on separate scales; the NATO system reviewed by Irwin and Mandel (2019) is the common reference, and US Intelligence Community Directive 203 requires analysis to describe the quality and credibility of its sources. Those gradings belong to the Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology. Evidence origin is not such a grade: it classifies what kind of artefact stated a claim and says nothing about how dependable the source has been.

**Open-source investigation practice.** The capture, preservation and review rules (5.3, 5.5, 5.12, 6.7) are consistent with the sequence the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations sets out for online investigations: online inquiries, preliminary assessment, collection, preservation, verification and investigative analysis. The Protocol was written for investigations into violations of international law; this standard applies the same discipline to commercial research, and does not claim the Protocol's evidentiary purpose. The status values of 6.7 are Altss-defined.

**Altss methodology.** The three-dimension model of 3.2 and its assignment rules (6.1, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8) are defined by Altss for this reference system. They draw on the practices above. They are not an industry standard.

**Dates.** Dates are recorded in ISO 8601 calendar format at the precision the source gives.

## 13. Version and change log

- **Version 1.2 (2026-10-01).** Independent review. Worked example 1 no longer states that a Form ADV assets figure is as of fiscal year end; it applies the as-of rule of section 9. Berkeley Protocol step names aligned with the Protocol. Summary phrased as a standard.

- **Version 1.1 (2026-10-01).** Adds the three-dimension evidence model (Altss methodology): evidence origin on each evidence item (6.6: five values, assigned by precedence), derivation status on each value (6.1: OBSERVED, DERIVED, ESTIMATED, unchanged), and validation status on each claim version with its validation date (6.7: UNVERIFIED, CORROBORATED, RESEARCH_VALIDATED, CONFLICTING, with precedence). Adds the independence test (6.8) and the compatibility pre-check (7.1). Retires the FILED and REPORTED display sub-labels, now expressed as derivation status plus evidence origin. Conflict handling now sets the status CONFLICTING and resolves it by review (7.2, 7.3). Renames "basis" to derivation status, "origin" of a chain to originating source, "derivative restatement" to copy or compilation, and "verification date" to validation date; "entity verified" is the validation date of a RESEARCH_VALIDATED status.

- **Version 1.0 (2026-10-01).** First publication. Establishes claim-level provenance, the evidence-item minimum, cite-what-was-read and trace-to-origin rules, value bases, null states, negative evidence, the date vocabulary, conflict pre-checks and the PROV-O alignment.

**Change control.** Adding or redefining a value on any of the three evidence dimensions, a null state or a date type is a major change. New examples and clarifications are minor changes.

## Concepts used

- [Data Provenance](https://altss.com/glossary/data-provenance)

- [Source Attribution (Claim-Level Provenance)](https://altss.com/glossary/source-attribution)

- Evidence Chain

- [Evidence Dates](https://altss.com/glossary/evidence-dates)

- Observed, Derived and Estimated Data

- Unknown, Not Disclosed and Not Found

- Negative Evidence

- [Primary Source](https://altss.com/glossary/primary-source)

- Regulatory Filing

- [Audit Trail](https://altss.com/glossary/audit-trail)

- [Open-Source Intelligence](https://altss.com/glossary/osint)

- Public Record

- Self-Reported Data

- [Triangulation (Source Triangulation)](https://altss.com/glossary/source-triangulation)

- Source Conflict

- [Last Verified](https://altss.com/glossary/last-verified)

## Sources

- [PROV-O: The PROV Ontology](https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/). Timothy Lebo; Satya Sahoo; Deborah McGuinness (eds.), W3C, W3C Recommendation, 30 April 2013. Status: Current Recommendation (checked 2026-10-01). Sections 3.1 (starting point terms) and 3.2 (expanded terms)

- [Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations](https://humanrights.berkeley.edu/publications/berkeley-protocol-on-digital-open-source-investigations/). OHCHR; Human Rights Center, UC Berkeley School of Law, United Nations (OHCHR) and UC Berkeley, HR/PUB/20/2; launched 2 December 2020; printed edition (c) 2022 United Nations. Status: Current (checked 2026-10-01). Investigation process chapter

- [Form ADV (Uniform Application for Investment Adviser Registration and Report by Exempt Reporting Advisers) - SEC form cover and index](https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv.pdf). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, OMB No. 3235-0049; expires 2027-07-31. Status: in force (checked 2026-10-01). Part 1A

- [17 CFR 239.500 - Form D, notice of sales of securities under Regulation D and section 4(a)(5) of the Securities Act of 1933](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/239.500). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (CFR text via eCFR; LII mirror), eCFR current as of 2026-09-29; last amended 2017-05-23. Status: in force (checked 2026-10-01). 17 CFR 239.500

- [Improving information evaluation for intelligence production](https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2019.1569343). Daniel Irwin; David R. Mandel, Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 34(4), pp. 503-525. Status: Published (paywalled) (checked 2026-10-01). Vol. 34(4), pp. 503-525

- [Intelligence Community Directive 203: Analytic Standards](https://archive.dni.gov/files/documents/ICD/ICD-203.pdf). Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, Signed 2 January 2015; technical amendments incl. 21 January 2022. Status: In force (as amended) (checked 2026-10-01). Analytic tradecraft standards (first standard)

## Related frameworks

- Methodology · Version 1.2

### [Altss Source Reliability & Confidence Methodology](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/source-reliability-and-confidence-methodology)

The Altss methodology for grading sources and assigning confidence labels to private-markets claims: source authority classes, reliability and credibility grades adapted from the NATO Admiralty system, independence, use of validation status, conflict handling, label meaning and limits, calibration and decay.

- Methodology · Version 1.2

### [Altss Temporal Data & Freshness Methodology](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/temporal-data-and-freshness-methodology)

The Altss methodology for time in private-markets data: valid time vs transaction time, point-in-time reconstruction, as-of reporting, freshness as an attribute of each claim rather than a page, decay, and why a content edit never implies that a fact was verified.

- Methodology · Version 1.2

### [Altss Entity Resolution Methodology](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/entity-resolution-methodology)

The Altss methodology for deciding whether two records describe the same entity: identity, relation and role kept separate; organisations merged only on registry identifiers or a filing naming both as one; similarity creates relation candidates, never merges; no metrics summed across entity families.

- Standard · Version 1.2

### [Altss Private Markets Research Citation Standard](https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/research-citation-standard)

Altss's rules for citing sources in private-markets reference and research content: source tiers, no self-citation or competitor evidence for general claims, a fixed claim format with unit and as-of date, recency markers, and rules for AI-assisted drafting.

## Canonical URL

https://altss.com/knowledge-center/frameworks/evidence-and-provenance-standard