The rulebook underneath every register in this archive — the five claim statuses, how a claim entered the record, what it took to close a research question, and the explicit list of things desk research could not settle.

Document begins

Evidence Curation Protocol

Bottom Pub Co-op — Internal | Stage 1 Last updated: 2026-05-22

This document defines how the project’s evidence base is structured, maintained, and handed off. Read this before adding, updating, or referencing any research file.

1. Evidence index

All active research files, their purpose, and current status.

Internal research (`internal/research/`)

File	Purpose	Status
`claim_register.csv`	Working record of specific claims needing review before public use	*Local only — gitignored by policy (`internal/research/.csv`).** Not in tracked source. Treat as a working tool, not a durable audit trail. Key claim decisions are recorded in this protocol and in the research questions register.
`research_questions_register.md`	Open questions indexed by ID; tracks progress toward answers	Active — update status when evidence changes
`comprehensive_gap_analysis.md`	Cross-stream gap analysis: what research is missing, what needs professional advice	Reference — update when new gaps identified
`outstanding_legal_due_diligence.md`	Register of unresolved legal questions across licensing, structure, and property streams	Reference — feeds lawyer brief (#19)
`sanity_check_report.md`	Evaluation of case study accuracy and internal claim risk	Reference — static snapshot; superseded for case studies by `case_study_cleaned.md`
`case_study_cleaned.md`	Verified case studies with source notes and analogy caveats	Active — source of truth for case study claims
`case_study_validation_report.md`	Detailed validation against deep research	Reference — read alongside `case_study_cleaned.md`
`case_study_verification.md`	Triage checklist for case study use	Reference — see triage bucket table for current status
`commercial_hotel_history.md`	Historical record of the Commercial Hotel, Cygnet	Reference — update if new historical material found

Public research (`docs/research/`)

File	Purpose	Status
`official_sources.md`	Authoritative sources agents should verify and expand	Active — add new primary sources here, not inline
`grant_landscape.md`	Register of potential grant/social finance sources	Reference — verify against current guidelines before any application
`eoi_stage_leakage_audit.md`	Stage discipline audit of the public EOI draft	Reference — static; re-audit if EOI draft is materially revised

Strategy research (`internal/strategy/`)

The briefing documents in internal/strategy/ (legal_and_licensing_briefing.md, finance_assumptions_book.md, etc.) are stream-level research, not the claim register. They inform claims but do not supersede it. When a briefing produces a new factual claim or disproves an existing one, update claim_register.csv and research_questions_register.md accordingly.

2. Claim status taxonomy

Every claim in claim_register.csv carries one of five statuses. Use these and no others.

Status	Meaning	Public use
`FACT`	Verified from a named, retrievable source	State directly. Cite if asked.
`ASSUMPTION`	Plausible but not verified from source	Internal use only. Do not state publicly without caveat.
`OPEN`	Not yet answerable — needs data, verification, or advice	Do not state. Note as an open question if it arises.
`PROFESSIONAL-ADVICE-NEEDED`	Requires legal, financial, or technical expertise	Do not state in any form until advice is received and approved.
`DEBUNKED`	Shown to be false or unverifiable	Remove from all documents. Do not reintroduce.

These are the same five categories used in the message_house.md proof ladder. Keep them aligned.

3. How a new claim enters the record

A claim is any assertion that could appear in a public document, media pitch, or working-group communication.

Note: claim_register.csv is a local working tool (gitignored). For claims that matter to the project record, the status and recommended action should also be captured in this protocol (§5) or in the research questions register, both of which are tracked in git.

Step 1 — Identify. Is the claim already in claim_register.csv? If yes, update the existing row. Do not add duplicates.

Step 2 — Assign status. Apply the taxonomy above. When in doubt, use OPEN or PROFESSIONAL-ADVICE-NEEDED — never escalate a claim’s confidence without a source.

Step 3 — Record the source. Every FACT claim must name a retrievable source in the source_doc field. If no source exists, the claim is ASSUMPTION or lower.

Step 4 — State the recommended action. What needs to happen before this claim can be used publicly?

Step 5 — Cross-reference. If the claim relates to an open research question (research_questions_register.md), note the Q-ID. If it blocks a workplan task, note the issue number. If the claim is critical (PROFESSIONAL-ADVICE-NEEDED or DEBUNKED), record the decision in this protocol §5 so it survives in git regardless of the local CSV.

4. How a research question gets closed

A question in research_questions_register.md moves from Open → Resolved only when:

A named authoritative source directly answers it (FACT standard), or
A professional adviser (solicitor, accountant, licensing authority) has provided a formal answer.

Moving from Open → Researched is appropriate when desk research has produced a working answer that still requires professional confirmation.

Questions that turn out to be decisions (not research questions) should be moved to the decisions log (internal/decisions/decision-log.md), not left as perpetually open research questions. See Q-012 for an example.

5. What still needs professional advice

These items cannot be resolved by agent research alone. They are blockers for downstream work.

Item	Blocks	Route
Legal structure: distributing vs non-distributing co-op	Q-002, Q-004, C-007, C-008; finance model; governance design	Solicitor with co-op experience. See lawyer brief (#19).
Active membership rule drafting	Q-003	Same solicitor, after Q-002 is resolved.
Fixed returns / securities regulation	C-001 to C-003, Q-005	No public statement until Disclosure Statement drafted and approved. Solicitor + Registrar.
Liquor licence: natural person pathway	Q-006	Researched (natural person required). Formal legal confirmation of mechanism still needed. Same solicitor.
Licence transferability	Q-007	Requires current licence details (CBOS Tasmania check) plus legal advice.
Building works scope	Q-008	Heritage architect + building inspector. Cannot assess without physical access (#16, #18).
Revenue and wage assumptions	Q-009, C-004 to C-006	Hospitality accountant with Tasmanian comparables. Stage 2.

6. Maintenance rules

Who maintains this. The evidence and research curation portfolio (see #35 and the private/agents/portfolios/evidence-research-curation.md agent spec). In the absence of a named volunteer, agents maintain it between sessions and flag drift to the working group.

Frequency. Review claim_register.csv and research_questions_register.md after any research session, any new external source, or any external communication that makes a claim traceable to this register.

What triggers an update.

A new external source confirms or contradicts a claim → update status and source
A professional provides an answer to a research question → move to Resolved and add source
A claim appears in a public document that is not in the register → add it immediately
A DEBUNKED claim reappears in any document → remove and note in the claim row

What does not trigger an update. Internal brainstorm notes, draft documents, or agent session outputs do not update the register until a human has reviewed and approved the underlying claim. Agent work populates drafts; humans approve the move to FACT.

7. Handoff to the working group

The evidence base is ready to hand off when:

claim_register.csv has no claims in OPEN status — each is either FACT, ASSUMPTION, PROFESSIONAL-ADVICE-NEEDED, or DEBUNKED.
research_questions_register.md has no question with status Open that an agent could answer from desk research — those should be Researched.
The lawyer brief (#19) is sent, covering all items in the PROFESSIONAL-ADVICE-NEEDED column above.
This protocol document is included in the admin vault and accessible to the working group.

At handoff, the working group takes ownership of decisions derived from the evidence (structure choice, active membership rule, etc.). The research curation portfolio continues to maintain the record as new evidence arrives.

The evidence curation protocol