Source links help readers distinguish documented facts, attributed claims, and the blog’s interpretation. This page explains how to read those distinctions.
Posts draw on official records, company filings, research, public datasets, and identified published reporting. The revised archive is based on desk research with AI-assisted editing; it does not claim original interviews or field reporting.
Start with the document closest to the claim: a filing for financial results, an order for a legal action, or a dataset for a statistical measure. Official and company statements should still be attributed and assessed for their purpose, scope, and limitations.
When another publication supplies a fact or relies on unnamed sources, attribute the account to that publication. Readers should not be left with the impression that the blog interviewed those sources.
Read dates, definitions, reporting periods, and units before comparing documents or data. Distinguish a claim submitted to an institution from a conclusion independently reached by that institution.
Revised posts include numbered references and a source list. Links should lead to the record or report supporting the claim. A source may establish only part of a paragraph, so attribution and qualifications belong in the text as well as in the source list.
A citation helps readers inspect evidence; it does not certify every statement on the linked page. If a record does not establish a claim, narrow the claim, explain the uncertainty, or remove it. A historical post’s update date should not make an old event appear new.
