Documented
A claim directly established by a primary record, legal text, official measurement, or transparent dataset.
Neutrality is a
practice, not a pose.
Common Ground does not manufacture a midpoint between claims. We separate evidence from interpretation, represent competing arguments fairly, and show readers where our confidence ends.
The central idea
People can share a factual record and still disagree—because facts do not choose our values, define acceptable risk, or predict the future for us.
Three evidence tiers
“Objective truth” is too often used as a stamp of authority. We use a visible ladder of confidence instead.
Broadly supported
A synthesis consistent with multiple credible sources or expert review, stated with its limitations.
Still unresolved
A consequential question for which evidence, law, definitions, or forecasts remain meaningfully contested.
Source selection
We prefer sources closest to the claim and include synthesis only when it adds necessary context.
- Primary records first: laws, court opinions, agency data, original studies, and direct institutional reports.
- Credible synthesis second: consensus reports and transparent analysis from institutions with relevant expertise.
- Traceability always: evidence-bearing claims carry visible citations that readers can inspect.
- Recency with context: new evidence is dated and evaluated against the larger record rather than treated as automatically decisive.
The perspective standard
We organize positions around what they propose and why—not around who is presumed to hold them.
Claims before camps
We map the actual positions in a debate rather than forcing them into left, center, and right. Political association is context, not the organizing principle.
Evidence with edges
We state what a source supports and where its reach ends. Correlation is not labeled causation; a projection is not labeled an observed result.
Strongest fair case
Each perspective should be recognizable to thoughtful advocates. We avoid caricatures, loaded verbs, and unequal standards of proof.
Uncertainty in public
Open questions are part of the product, not an embarrassment to hide. We name what evidence could narrow them.
How a dossier is reviewed
The current prototype is hand-authored. A future AI-assisted workflow will keep human judgment at every publication boundary.
- Gather
An editor chooses a bounded set of credible sources from curated feeds and primary records.
- Structure
AI may extract claims, proposed perspectives, source links, and points of contradiction into a private draft.
- Challenge
An editor checks every evidence-bearing claim, searches for missing context, and steel-mans each perspective.
- Publish & revise
The dossier receives a review date, correction path, and updates when the record materially changes.