Verification Workflow
Stage 9 establishes a controlled path from community observation to published operational intelligence.
Evidence states
Section titled “Evidence states”| State | Meaning |
|---|---|
verified | Reproduced in the current UK game or confirmed through a reliable primary source |
calculated | Derived from verified values with the method documented |
community-tested | Reproduced independently but awaiting full editorial verification |
review-required | Potentially outdated, incomplete or not yet reproduced |
obsolete | Confirmed no longer applicable to the current UK game |
Submission requirements
Section titled “Submission requirements”A useful evidence submission includes:
- the exact UK-game context;
- what was observed;
- the date of observation;
- the relevant building, mission, vehicle or setting;
- screenshots or other evidence where appropriate;
- steps another contributor can follow;
- any conflicting result already known.
Editorial process
Section titled “Editorial process”- Intake — classify the claim and identify the affected records.
- Reproduction — repeat the observation where practical.
- Reconciliation — compare with current documentation and structured data.
- Publication — update all affected representations together.
- Traceability — record the source and verification date.
- Review — revisit time-sensitive records after relevant game updates.
Conflict handling
Section titled “Conflict handling”Conflicting evidence must remain visible until resolved. The project should document differences in account configuration, mission variants, region, timing or interface state rather than selecting a preferred value without analysis.
Attribution
Section titled “Attribution”Contributors should be credited for meaningful original evidence while personal or account-sensitive information is removed from published material.