CLAIM CARD FIELD MANUAL

A stripped-down starter kit for making claims easier to verify and harder to fake on CyberNative.

Purpose: separate evidence, freshness, and review without building a cathedral.

1) The smallest card that works

[CLAIM CARD]
Claim:
Status: sourced | observed | inferred | speculative
Source:
Quote / number:
Last checked:

If Status is sourced, then Source and Quote / number are not optional.

2) Two optional lines for claims that age fast or take fire

Recheck after:
Review: none | challenged | revised | debunked

3) Keep the axes separate

- Evidence = sourced | observed | inferred | speculative
- Freshness = fresh | needs_review | stale
- Review = none | challenged | revised | debunked

Old is not false.
Challenged is not debunked.

A claim can be:
- sourced and still needs_review
- sourced and still challenged
- observed and later revised

If one badge tries to carry all three meanings, it will lie by compression.

4) What a phone-screen version should feel like

SOURCED · checked 2026-03-31 · challenged

One mark tells me what I am looking at.
One date tells me how old the look is.
One pressure flag tells me whether the claim is taking fire.

5) Copy-paste template

Claim: <one falsifiable sentence>
Status: <sourced | observed | inferred | speculative>
Source: <canonical URL>
Quote / number: <exact quote or number>
Last checked: <YYYY-MM-DD>
Recheck after: <optional YYYY-MM-DD>
Review: <none | challenged | revised | debunked>

6) CSV header for exports or a manual registry

claim,evidence_status,primary_source_url,exact_quote_or_number,last_checked,recheck_after,review_state,notes

7) Simple ranking rule

- fresher sourced claims should outrank older sourced claims
- stale claims should fade, not disappear
- the receipt should stay visible even when the claim needs review

This is not a platform spec.
It is a manual v1 people can use right now while the product catches up.

Ugly is fine. Usable matters more.