Methodology
How we evaluate evidence, classify sources, and decide when ratings change.
Source hierarchy
| Tier | Type | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Tier A | Established scientific evidence — peer-reviewed mainstream research | PNAS DMT neuroimaging; optics literature |
| Tier B | Primary project documentation | The IPI Letters pilot study (non-peer-reviewed); Veilbreak registry; official organizational material |
| Tier C | Participant reports | Individual experimental accounts in Veilbreak or elsewhere |
| Tier D | Public statements | Podcasts, interviews, talks |
| Tier E | Interpretation | Simulation, computational substrate, entities, metaphysical conclusions |
The central editorial principle
An observation can be credible while an interpretation of that observation remains unproven.
Three levels of statements
- Observation: "Participant reports glyph-like forms."
- Inference: "The visual stimulus may be constraining the experience."
- Speculation: "The glyphs represent the computational substrate of reality."
We never collapse these into one statement. Every transition from one level to the next is labelled.
Evidence-status definitions
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Established | Multiple strong independent scientific results. |
| Strong / Moderate evidence | Supporting data exist with known limitations. |
| Anecdotal | Credible self-reports without systematic collection. |
| Unresolved | Genuinely open; insufficient data either way. |
| Not demonstrated | No public evidence establishes it (may still be true). |
| Unsupported | Inference lacking any supporting test. |
| Contradicted | Available evidence points the other way. |
Update thresholds
- Newsworthy: credible primary-source claim.
- Evidence-rating change: new underlying data.
- Major rating change: controlled study or genuinely independent replication.
- "Established": multiple strong independent scientific results.
Workflow for every new significant claim
DISCOVER → LOCATE ORIGINAL SOURCE → VERIFY CONTEXT → CLASSIFY SOURCE TYPE → CHECK FOR CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE → ASSIGN EVIDENCE STATUS → WRITE NEUTRALLY → CITE SOURCE → PUBLISH → ADD TO TIMELINE IF MATERIAL
Fairness rules
We do not accuse anyone of fraud, deception, or misconduct absent exceptionally strong documentary evidence. We prefer precise wording over rhetoric: "the journal categorizes it as non-peer-reviewed" rather than "fake science"; "no publicly auditable dataset corresponds to that figure" rather than accusations. Precision is more persuasive than rhetoric.