Process evidence learning
Keep observations, source claims, analysis and advice distinct
Evidence labels show how a statement is supported and which parts still need evidence or external execution. In the MIRENA process vocabulary, they distinguish observations, source statements, analysis, advice and unresolved work.
Use the labels when tool results, supplied files, model synthesis, remembered information and proposed actions appear together. Attach the source, date, method, scope and responsible owner to each finding.
Read the reference for all six labels
Classify the statement, not the confidence of its wording
Evidence labels separate what was observed, taken from a source, interpreted, proposed or left unresolved. They also expose work that cannot be executed in the available environment. A polished sentence, familiar result pattern or confident model response cannot supply a missing observation.
Split a mixed statement
Separate the factual statement, source assertion, interpretation and proposed action. Each can have a different basis. A recommendation to change a page does not establish that the page currently has the reported defect, and evidence of a defect does not establish that the recommendation has been carried out.
Describe the observation method
A tool observation supports what that method measured in the recorded context. A saved HTTP response is not a rendered interaction test; a screenshot is not a complete functional test. A tool can also accurately report a source containing a false assertion. Keep the observed result distinct from a broader claim about truth.
Keep source attribution and analysis distinct
A supplied document can support “the document states this” within its version and scope. Interpreting different documents, comparing page roles or proposing a cause adds analysis. Preserve that reasoning and its assumptions rather than labelling the whole statement as a direct observation.
Separate evidence class from process state
The labels used here include evidence origin, interpretation, advice, missing evidence and unavailable execution. They are not one universal ranking of certainty. Approval, readiness, freshness and permission are separate states that must remain visible beside the label.
Use a label that matches the claim’s basis
These six technical labels are the first party process vocabulary used here. The examples and records C1 and S1 below are hypothetical. They do not report a tool call, source inspection, current search observation or completed external action.
| Exact label | What the example can support | Pointer, limit and next action |
|---|---|---|
| TOOL_VERIFIED | Assume saved result C1 records the response status for Page P1 at time T1. The statement is limited to that observed response and context. | Retain requested and final destination, time, method and result. Do not turn a status observation into proof of rendering, usability, indexing or every claim on the page. |
| SOURCE_DERIVED | Assume supplied source S1, version 2, states a product function for one release. The derived statement accurately preserves that source scope. | Point to the exact passage and version. Review source authority, date, contradictions and applicability before treating the underlying function as current. |
| MODEL_ANALYSIS | A comparison suggests that two supplied pages answer the same task. The interpretation draws on the provided evidence. | Keep the input references, reasoning, assumptions and uncertainty. It is not a current search result or a directly measured user outcome. |
| RECOMMENDATION | Review the overlapping page roles and consider consolidation if the evidence about ownership and distinct usefulness supports it. | State the proposed action, rationale, conditions and owner. Advice is not evidence that the action occurred or that it would produce a guaranteed result. |
| DEFERRED_EVIDENCE_REQUIRED | A claim about a current search feature remains unresolved because a suitable current observation has not been obtained. | Name the missing evidence, scope, owner and next permitted check. Do not repeat the claim as an observed current fact while waiting. |
| UNAVAILABLE_EXTERNAL_EXECUTION | A required external check cannot be performed with the tools, access or environment currently available. | Record the unavailable action and dependency without inventing success or failure. Identify an authorized owner or future route; inability to execute is not a negative observation about the target. |
A remembered search result pattern and a proposal to target it need separate records. In a hypothetical project, the memory is not current evidence. Mark the missing current observation as deferred, or record unavailable execution if the necessary environment is absent. Keep the targeting proposal as a recommendation with its conditions. If a suitable recorded observation is later obtained, add a new scoped observation; do not retroactively pretend the earlier memory was verified.
Keep a retrievable evidence path beside each finding
The record should let another reviewer locate the support, reconstruct the relevant context and see the limits of its use. A label without a source pointer or method cannot make the finding inspectable. Preserve conflicting records and the decision about their applicable scope.
- Claim or finding Write the smallest meaningful statement being classified. Separate the measurement from the interpretation and the action it motivates. Keep the subject and applicable version identifiable.
- Evidence label Use the exact class supported by the record. Do not present analysis as an observation, a source assertion as an independent measurement, or a proposed action as completed execution.
- Source pointer and method Attach the file or URL, relevant passage or line, version, tool result and method as appropriate. Retain a stable reference or saved artifact when needed to reproduce the reviewed state. A filename alone may not distinguish changing versions.
- Scope, observation and expiry Record the observation date, effective period, market, release, environment and limitation. Define the source change or review event that makes the finding unsuitable for a current claim. Keep uncertainty visible even when a source is recent.
- Owner, review state and next route Name the accountable owner, accepted or unresolved state, missing dependency and next valid action. A claim can have correctly labelled provenance while still being unfit to publish, stale or blocked by an unresolved conflict.
Review current use without erasing the historical evidence
An old observation can remain an accurate record of what was seen at its recorded time while no longer supporting a current claim. Preserve that history and change its usability or review state. A new label or recent timestamp cannot refresh the evidence by itself.
- Inspect the source and context. Confirm that the pointer resolves to the intended version and that the finding stays within the method’s scope. Check contradictory or differently scoped records before accepting a derived claim.
- Resolve missing or unavailable work. Keep deferred evidence and unavailable external execution distinct. Obtain the missing support through the permitted route, or retain the blocked dependency and deliver only the supported portion.
- Add new observations without rewriting history. When evidence arrives, record the new method, source, date and scope. Preserve the former deferred state and reason. If a recommendation is carried out, keep its advice record and add a separate execution or observation record.
- Reopen dependent findings. Identify drafts, comparisons, graph assertions and approvals that consumed the changed evidence. Check the affected units again and leave unrelated accepted findings intact when their support has not changed.
- Close with a bounded disposition. Retain the finding, label, provenance, reviewer, limitation and next trigger. A failed, stale or unsupported current claim does not become ready for downstream use because the next team is waiting.
Questions about evidence labels
Does TOOL_VERIFIED establish every claim in a statement?
No. It identifies a recorded tool observation within its method and context. Keep the observed result, source assertions and any broader interpretation separate.
Can one report contain all six classes?
Yes. Classify the individual statements and execution dependencies instead of giving an entire report one undifferentiated certainty label. Mixed evidence needs visible boundaries.
Does a current source remove uncertainty?
No. Source authority, claim fit, version, market and contradictions still need review. A recent observation date is one part of provenance, not a substitute for supporting the claim.
What if a recommendation has not been carried out?
Keep it as a recommendation. Record missing evidence or unavailable execution separately when those conditions apply. Do not imply an external action happened because it was described in a plan.
Do the labels guarantee search outcomes?
No. They make the basis and limits of a statement inspectable. They do not guarantee indexing, rankings, citations, search features, traffic or conversions.
Related decisions and source reading
Repair Cycles and Renewed Checks
Reopen only the findings and outputs made stale by changed evidence.
Human Approval Gates for SEO Production
Keep evidence classification separate from the authority to accept a version or perform an action.
Planning and production process
Carry labelled sources and accepted states through later project work.
Process documentation library
Find related methods for inputs, review and delivery.
Source Freshness and Expiry Control
Review the dates, source changes and conditions that limit current use.
Source Context for Topical Maps
Keep the subject, audience, version and evidence boundaries attached to derived statements.
The exact label names are a first party process vocabulary, not an external evidence certification. The reference cases are hypothetical and do not report observations or actions performed. The evidence record supports only its stated claim, method, context and review period.