Saving evidence and uncertainty

Imagine that one input is corrected next month

Your saved reading contains a chart, several interpretations and a practical suggestion. Later you learn that a time setting was wrong. Can you tell which statements depend on that setting? If the only surviving record is a cropped sentence, the answer may be impossible to reconstruct. Designing a useful evidence trail starts with this future correction, not with collecting the largest possible archive.

Keep the original result and its relevant context. Then make a separate working copy for notes. A correction belongs in a new record connected to the original: what changed, why it changed, when you changed it, and what still needs checking. Replacing the old value without a trace makes a corrected output look as though it had always been correct.

Follow a claim backwards

Choose one sentence you may want to rely on. Identify its subject and time scope, then ask what supports it. A displayed chart field, a traditional symbolic association and an action you are considering are different kinds of material. A source for the association does not by itself justify the action. The intervening interpretation needs to remain visible.

For example, a screenshot can establish that a particular tool displayed a particular house number under the recorded settings. It cannot alone establish that the calculation was correct, that a symbolic meaning applies to you, or that a future event will occur. Each additional claim needs its own support. The distinction is developed in facts, symbols, inferences and advice.

The W3C PROV overview describes provenance in terms of things, activities and participants involved in producing information. You do not need to implement its technical formats for a personal notebook. The relevant habit is to preserve the path by which a statement reached your record. A known path helps assessment; it does not certify truth.

Uncertainty needs a next action, not a decorative number

An unknown birth time, conflicting date records, an undocumented convention and a disagreement about interpretation are not interchangeable. The first may require an original record; the second needs a comparison of sources; the third may remain unknown; the fourth requires examination of the arguments. A single label such as eighty percent confident hides these different tasks.

Write the limitation locally. For instance: the date has been checked, but the tool's day-boundary convention is not documented. That preserves the checked date without pretending that the whole calculation is settled. Conversely, one uncertain item should not automatically erase every independent fact in the record.

NIST's discussion of quantitative techniques places quantified uncertainty within statistical testing. A private impression of confidence does not acquire that meaning just because it is expressed as a percentage. Without defined data and a suitable model, use ordinary statements about what is missing, disputed or untested. They are easier for another reader to act on.

Connect versions without overstating the review

Open the full-size diagram

Original BaZiFlow version-history diagram. A branch records a correction, not an increase in predictive accuracy.

In the diagram the original survives on the timeline and the revision is attached as a branch. This is a history of evidence, not a graph of increasing accuracy. A newer file can still contain an unresolved mistake. The hollow markers remind the reader that revision and uncertainty can coexist.

When correcting the time setting, record the old and new values and the basis for the change. List the affected fields. Then inspect interpretations that relied on those fields. Do not mark the entire reading as verified merely because one calculation has been corrected. A paragraph that was not reviewed remains unreviewed, even when it happens to sit beside a corrected number.

If the change only fixes punctuation, say so. If it changes an input or a method, a vague updated label is not enough. The settings comparison guide can help distinguish an input difference from an interpretive one before you decide what must be revisited.

Make the trail usable by its intended reader

A private record and a shared example need different amounts of personal context. Keep a separate sharing copy containing only what is necessary to understand the claim. Check filenames, image edges and annotations as well as the main text. Evidence about someone else's reading is not permission to publish their birth details or personal narrative.

You can begin with a small entry: record identifier, capture date, original location, one claim, its support, one unresolved question and a next step. Add detail when it resolves a real ambiguity. More screenshots do not necessarily improve traceability if no one can tell which version or assertion they support.

The practical test is simple: could another careful reader find the original, understand the transformation, and see where your judgment stops? A useful trail supports that limited task. It should not imply that storing an interpretation proves it, or that a carefully documented tradition has thereby acquired demonstrated predictive validity.

1. 1

   Name the corrected item

   Record the earlier time setting and the documented replacement without painting over the original image.

2. 2

   Follow its dependencies

   List UTC fields needing recalculation, then the explanations that used them.

3. 3

   Separate completed checks

   If UTC alone was checked, record that field as checked and its dependent prose as awaiting review.