01 / Provenance
Where did it come from?Source identity and lineage should remain represented or documented to the depth the system actually implements. Provenance is a traceability requirement, not a claim of exhaustive end-to-end lineage.
How we work
Discipline is part of the infrastructure.
We use explicit engineering and governance requirements so rigor shows up in the work itself. These are design standards and decision constraints, not claims that every current implementation is complete.
02 / Validation
What rules did it pass?Data should be checked against documented rules before it is accepted. The scope of those checks should remain explicit rather than being inflated into broader statistical or methodological assurance.
03 / Reproducibility
Can it be recreated?Pipelines, configuration, and transformation logic should make results recreatable from the same source data or equivalent inputs without undocumented manual judgment.
04 / Maintainability
Can it evolve without hidden context?Systems and documentation should remain understandable enough to change deliberately rather than depending on undocumented institutional knowledge or one-off conventions.
05 / Transparent limitations
What is not being claimed?Relevant methodology, decisions, and material limitations should be stated plainly while preserving legitimate private, operational, and security boundaries.
06 / Auditability
What can another person inspect?Evidence, records, decisions, and relevant system context should support systematic review to the depth actually implemented without implying certification, assurance, or guaranteed correctness.
Why it matters
Evidence should remain open to scrutiny.
Macro Evidence publishes relevant public records and engineering context so scrutiny is possible. Those records support review; the person evaluating the evidence still decides what to trust.