# Source Credibility Scorecard

Evaluate whether a source is fit for a specific claim by examining authority, evidence quality, recency, independence, transparency, and known limitations.

## Usage note

Score a source for the exact claim and use case in front of you. A respected publisher can still be too old, indirect, conflicted, or methodologically weak to support a particular sentence.

## How to use this template

1. Copy the precise claim and define what a suitable source must establish.
2. Record the source's authorship, date, version, method, evidence, and interests.
3. Rate each dimension with a short reason instead of assigning numbers from intuition.
4. Identify any disqualifying gap and seek independent or more direct corroboration.
5. Make a documented use decision and carry necessary attribution or limitations into the draft.

## Blank template

### Source and intended use

- **Claim to support:** [Copy the exact proposed claim]
- **Reader consequence:** [Low / Medium / High if the claim is wrong]
- **Source title:** [Enter title]
- **Author or responsible institution:** [Enter name]
- **URL or document reference:** [Enter source]
- **Publication or version date:** [YYYY-MM-DD or version]
- **Access date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
- **Source type:** [Primary record / Research / Reporting / Expert / Vendor / Other]

### Dimension scorecard

Use Strong, Adequate, Weak, or Unknown and explain every choice.

- **Position to know:** [Rating and reason]
- **Relevant expertise:** [Rating and reason]
- **Evidence is direct:** [Rating and reason]
- **Method is transparent:** [Rating and reason]
- **Scope matches the claim:** [Rating and reason]
- **Current enough for this topic:** [Rating and reason]
- **Independent corroboration:** [Rating and reason]
- **Conflicts are disclosed:** [Rating and reason]
- **Corrections or revision history:** [Rating and reason]

### Evidence inspection

- [ ] The full source was read rather than only a search snippet or abstract.
- [ ] Definitions, sample, period, and jurisdiction match the proposed wording.
- [ ] Quotations and figures were checked in their original context.
- [ ] Linked evidence was opened and traced to the closest available primary record.
- [ ] Circular citations or repeated copies were not counted as independent support.
- [ ] Material limitations and uncertainty were captured for the draft.

### Use decision

- **Disqualifying concern:** [Describe or write None]
- **Corroborating source required:** [Yes / No and why]
- **Decision:** [Rely / Qualify / Corroborate / Background only / Reject]
- **Required attribution:** [Write the attribution]
- **Required limitation:** [Write the caveat]
- **Reviewer and date:** [Name, YYYY-MM-DD]
- **Recheck trigger:** [New version, policy change, scheduled date, other]