EVIDENCE CHECKS · AUGUST 2026
Relevance is only the first check
A source can cover the right topic and still fail to support a statement. A page describing a service does not necessarily establish its price, current availability or a result claimed by someone else.
Write down the exact claim
Separate broad statements into parts that can be checked. “The service is available across Canada at a fixed monthly price” contains a coverage claim and a pricing claim. The source may support one and not the other.
Match the strength of the evidence
If a source says an option may be offered, it does not support a claim that it is always included. If it reports a result for a particular test, it does not automatically establish the same result in every setting.
Keep qualifications such as dates, regions and conditions attached to the evidence. Removing them can change the meaning of the statement.
Record a support status
| Status | Review meaning |
|---|---|
| Supported | The evidence directly supports the statement within its stated limits. |
| Partly supported | Some parts are supported; others need qualification or separate evidence. |
| Not established | The source does not provide enough evidence to decide. |
| Conflicting evidence | Permitted sources differ in a way that needs project review. |
Keep the source reference usable
Record the source location and the relevant section or passage. For a changeable webpage, include the access date. Another reviewer should be able to follow the same check without reconstructing your search.
“Not established” is not the same as “false”. State the limit of the check rather than turning missing evidence into an unsupported verdict.