Case protocol
CP1 — Public-Record Case Protocol
This protocol sets out how a case may be built from public records without losing precision, fairness, source traceability, contradiction, publication safeguards, or corrigibility.
Abstract
A public-record case is built primarily from material that is available without private leak, hidden source, or anonymised actual-case material. That does not make the case automatically safe to publish, fully interpreted, or free from harm. Public material may be outdated, misregistered, contextless, selective, misleadingly quoted, or tied to persons who still require protection.
The protocol adds controls around public sources: version, date, origin, administrative layer, publication status, document type, quotation limit, context, party status, counter-material, correction, and downstream copies. Its purpose is to make public-record use reviewable without turning the record into actuality itself or public status into final truth.
The protocol is not a legal procedure and does not grant access, publication rights, or decision power. It is a methodological standard for how Reality Audit can work with public records in a precise, bounded, and corrigible way.
1. Purpose and scope
The protocol applies to cases where the grounding material is primarily public, open, or published: decisions, letters, reports, consultation documents, public registers, press releases, legal sources, public minutes, published articles, webpages, datasets, or other records traceable to an open source.
That a record is public does not mean every inference from it is publicly established. A public source may be wrong, old, incomplete, copied from an earlier erroneous source, misunderstood, changed after publication, or relevant only to a narrower question than the case tries to answer.
The protocol therefore prevents three errors: turning record status into truth, turning quotation into full context, and turning public availability into publication right without a new assessment of harm, privacy, precision, and contradiction.
2. Decisive distinctions
The document case must distinguish record, record status, record content, quotation, interpretation, claim, finding, and publication ground. These may support one another, but they are not the same thing.
The protocol must especially prevent a public record from being treated as the person, the event, the whole case history, or every later consequence.
| Layer | Function | Not equivalent to |
|---|---|---|
| Public record | Material with traceable origin and availability status. | Full truth or complete case picture. |
| Record status | Shows whether the record is published, registered, archived, available, or restricted. | Proof that the content is correct. |
| Quotation | Bounded reproduction of wording. | Full context or the author’s entire position. |
| Summary | The auditor’s condensed representation. | The source wording itself. |
| Interpretation | Examination of what the record can mean or support. | What the record alone establishes. |
| Finding | F1–F7 classification of documented correspondence. | Legal decision, moral judgment, or total assessment. |
| Publication | A new act with its own responsibility, safeguards, and correction trace. | Automatic consequence of the material already being public. |
3. Mandate, case type, and boundary
A public-record case must begin with a narrow question. It must not begin with totalising questions about whether an institution is corrupt, whether a person is unfit, or whether the entire system is captured.
The mandate must state which records are included, which period is examined, which language or record version applies, which parties may be affected, and what the audit expressly does not decide.
Case object
Identify the exact record, record group, decision, report, register item, or published claim to be examined.
- Minimum basis
- Title, date, sender, URL, or journal/archive reference where available.
- Consequence
- An unclear object weakens findings and normally prevents publication beyond methodological note.
Principal question
Formulate one main question answerable through sources, not through general suspicion.
- Minimum basis
- Claim matrix with P-codes.
- Consequence
- Large narratives must be divided into subclaims.
Time and version boundary
Set the date, version, publication status, and later changes belonging to the case.
- Minimum basis
- Version history, archived copy, retrieval date, and change log.
- Consequence
- Later corrections must not be mixed with what was known at the decision time.
Competence limit
State what the audit does not decide: legal validity, professional liability, medical assessment, security classification, or other formal competence.
- Minimum basis
- Scope field in S2 and status notice.
- Consequence
- Findings remain methodological, not formal rulings.
4. Source, version, and provenance control
Each public source must be recorded as material with its own code. Where the same text appears in several copies, those copies must not be counted as independent confirmations before the origin chain is controlled.
The case must state whether the record is a primary source, secondary presentation, derived register item, press report, summary, later copy, machine-readable extract, or screenshot.
Provenance
Record origin, sender, publication location, archive location, date, and access method.
- Minimum basis
- SRC code and source register.
- Consequence
- Unknown origin reduces finding strength.
Version
Record version, retrieval date, change date, archived copy, and whether the record was replaced or revised.
- Minimum basis
- Original file, webpage, metadata, archive copy, or document log.
- Consequence
- Different versions must not be quoted as one text.
Source dependence
Map whether several records rely on the same original registration, press release, decision, or report.
- Minimum basis
- Material chain from first registration to later copies.
- Consequence
- Derived copies do not automatically provide independent grounds.
Access and limitation
Record whether material is open, partly redacted, restricted, login-gated, licensed, time-limited, or technically unavailable.
- Minimum basis
- Access note and publication level.
- Consequence
- Limited access must be recorded as limitation, not filled with guesswork.
| Field | Question | Minimum requirement |
|---|---|---|
| SRC code | Which source is this? | Stable code, title, and document type. |
| Origin | Who published or created the record? | Sender, institution, or publication location. |
| Date | When was the record made, published, or retrieved? | Record date and retrieval date must be separated. |
| Version | Has the text changed? | Version number, archived copy, or visible revision note where possible. |
| Support | What can the source actually carry? | Relevant claim, limitation, and counter-material. |
5. Quotation, extract, summary, and context
Quotations must be short, precise, and necessary. Summaries must be marked as summaries. Paraphrase must not be presented as quotation, and translated text must not be presented as original wording.
Context is not a demand to reproduce everything. It is a demand not to remove what is necessary to prevent the quotation from changing function, modality, responsibility, or limitation.
Wording and boundary
Quote only the wording necessary to control the specific claim.
- Minimum basis
- Quotation with source code and page/paragraph where available.
- Consequence
- Unnecessarily long quotations must be replaced by summary.
Context
Include the nearest relevant context: who speaks, in what document type, about which question, and with which limitation.
- Minimum basis
- Context note in the claim matrix.
- Consequence
- Quotation without necessary context cannot support strong findings.
Modality
Preserve the difference between may, should, must, probably, possibly, disputed, not assessed, and established.
- Minimum basis
- Wording check against the original.
- Consequence
- Changed modality is recorded as language or representation error.
Translation
Mark translation as translation and record uncertainty in domain terms, legal terms, or institutional wording.
- Minimum basis
- Original language and translated text in the same source register.
- Consequence
- Translation alone cannot support findings requiring original wording.
6. Parties, named actors, and contradiction
That a person or institution is mentioned in public records does not mean they have had an opportunity to answer the new case presentation. A Reality Audit is a new representation and may require new contradiction.
The protocol distinguishes record party, named actor, source, responsible decision-maker, affected party, and public role. These must not be merged.
Party status
Identify who may be directly affected by the case presentation, not only who was formal party to the original record.
- Minimum basis
- Role and rights matrix.
- Consequence
- Affected actors may require contradiction even where the record is public.
Precise questions
Contradiction concerns concrete claims, document interpretations, and possible findings, not personal defence of honour or motive.
- Minimum basis
- P-codes and FN-codes.
- Consequence
- Responses must be able to change the findings matrix.
Response log
Record whether response was received, absent, limited, impossible, or unsafe to request.
- Minimum basis
- S8 log with date and method.
- Consequence
- Non-response is not automatic admission.
Counter-material
New material from a party or named actor is coded as source and examined, not merely attached.
- Minimum basis
- New SRC-codes and revised matrix.
- Consequence
- Provisional findings must be revised where counter-material carries weight.
7. Claim matrix, findings, and transfer safeguard
Public records may support many small claims, but rarely the whole narrative by themselves. The protocol requires each claim to receive a P-code and each finding to be tied to precise grounds.
A record may support that something was written, decided, or published. It does not automatically support that what was written was true, complete, correctly understood, or actually implemented.
| The record may show | The record does not automatically show | Required additional control |
|---|---|---|
| That wording exists | That the wording is true | Source grounds and counter-material. |
| That a decision was made | That all premises were correct | Fact, authority, and reasons control. |
| That a person is mentioned | That the description is correct or complete | Party status, source, and contradiction. |
| That a number is published | That the number measures the purpose | Definition, counting rule, and data source. |
| That a correction is published | That the consequence is repaired | Downstream trace and effect review. |
8. Correction trace and downstream copies
Public records continue through copies, excerpts, search engines, archives, press releases, registers, screenshots, and secondary cases. Correction in the original does not automatically correct all downstream effects.
The protocol therefore requires corrections to be tied to the source, the case presentation, and known copies or consequences where reasonably possible.
Correct stage
Determine whether the error lies in original record, quotation, summary, interpretation, title, matrix, or publication presentation.
- Minimum basis
- Source chain and P/FN-codes.
- Consequence
- Correction must not be placed at the wrong stage.
Visible version
Published correction states what changed, when, why, and which finding or claim it affects.
- Minimum basis
- Revision history and correction note.
- Consequence
- Silent rewriting is insufficient for material errors.
Downstream trace
Map known locations where the old presentation may have been used.
- Minimum basis
- Links, archives, quotations, shares, and derived documents.
- Consequence
- Critical consequences require specific notice or follow-up.
Effect review
Test whether correction actually changed decision, register, description, access, practice, or reputation where the case requires it.
- Minimum basis
- S10 note.
- Consequence
- A case cannot be closed by text change alone where the consequence remains.
9. Publication grounds, privacy, and harm test
Because the material is public, one may be tempted to publish more than necessary. The protocol resists this: every new publication is a new act with its own responsibility.
Publication must rest on necessity, public interest, precision, proportionality, anonymisation where needed, source protection, correction channel, and control of whether the presentation may cause wrongful harm.
Necessity
Publish only what is needed to make mandate, grounds, contradiction, findings, and correction reviewable.
- Minimum basis
- Publication levels PL0–PL4.
- Consequence
- Excess personal or harmful information is omitted or anonymised.
Identification risk
Test whether a combination of public facts, date, place, role, and quotation makes private persons identifiable.
- Minimum basis
- Reidentification note.
- Consequence
- Public source does not remove the need for renewed assessment.
Harm and safety
Assess whether publication may cause harassment, wrongful reputational harm, safety risk, retaliation, or undue pressure.
- Minimum basis
- Harm assessment before PL3 or PL4.
- Consequence
- Publication may be limited even where the source is open.
Correct channel
Assess whether the matter should be public article, restricted document, party response, correction letter, or only internal matrix.
- Minimum basis
- Purpose, risk, and competence limit.
- Consequence
- Methodological relevance is not automatic public publication ground.
10. Closure, reopening, and revision
A public-record case must be capable of closure without being locked against new documentation. Closure means that there is a documented status for sources, claims, findings, contradiction, correction, and open questions.
Reopening is required where new records, new versions, correction from the original source, party response, quotation error, anonymisation error, or new consequence changes the grounds.
Closure ground
Record why the case may be closed: corrected, bounded without sufficient grounds, delivered to the proper instance, or archived as unresolved.
- Minimum basis
- S10 note.
- Consequence
- Closed does not mean infallible.
Reopening conditions
Define what kind of new information requires a new version.
- Minimum basis
- Revision rule in final document.
- Consequence
- Readers know how to submit correction.
Revision history
Make material change visible by version, date, and note.
- Minimum basis
- v1.0, v1.1, v2.0 and later corrections.
- Consequence
- Trust rests in corrigibility, not immutable text.
Method revision
Where a case reveals weakness in the protocol, the protocol itself must be revised.
- Minimum basis
- Deviation or learning note.
- Consequence
- Case work can correct the method.
References
- S1–S10 case architectureUnderlying structure for this protocol.
- Reality Audit ProcedureOperational sequence from mandate to closure.
Revision history
- Document version
- 1.0
- First published
- 18 June 2026
First public edition.