Behind the directory
How we review an inference claim
Our approach to sources, unknowns and configuration-specific findings.
made. editorial · 2026-11-09 · 3 min read
Make the claim specific
“Hosted in Australia” is a starting point. We want to know which service, which model, which deployment type and which data categories that statement covers. Each material conclusion must link to evidence with that scope.
Separate documentation from assertion
Technical service documentation can explain routing and processing boundaries. A provider marketing page may identify a candidate but leave contractual exceptions unresolved. We label the source type rather than presenting all claims as equally established.
Keep unresolved questions visible
Missing evidence is not evidence of overseas processing. We show unverified and conditional states separately, record open questions, and keep them out of the AU processing documented filter.
Record meaningful review dates
A successful link check does not mean a claim was reviewed. The checked date records when the source was read for that claim. Material changes should enter the public change log; historical articles retain their publication date.