Briefing position
A structured source evidence review log for tracking official documents, regulator notices, exchange publications, issuer filings, commentary, confidence.
For committee-facing use, pair this research with Lobito Corridor Finance and Risk Map and DRC Border Clearance and Logistics Readiness Review before turning source analysis into a decision memo.
Direct answer
A source evidence review log tracks each claim, the source supporting it, source class, date, confidence, status language, unresolved uncertainty, metadata impact, and refresh trigger so articles do not overstate what the evidence proves.
This template is designed for OHUASI-style research where source discipline is part of the product.
When to use this template
Use this log before publishing or refreshing:
- Privatization asset dossiers.
- Public-offer explainers.
- BODIVA market articles.
- SADC corridor finance briefs.
- Offshore holding explainers.
- Entity dossiers.
- Investment committee memos.
- Lead magnet checklists.
- Metadata rewrites.
Source evidence log
| Claim ID | Claim | Source | Source class | Date | Direct support? | Confidence | Status word allowed | Refresh trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-001 | Level 1/2/3/4/5 | Yes/No/Partial | High/Medium/Low/Mixed |
Source class definitions
Level 1: controlling official source
Use for legal texts, regulator notices, exchange publications, prospectuses, official tender documents, concession agreements, court records, issuer filings, and formal transaction documents.
Level 2: primary institutional source
Use for named institutional materials such as company reports, public agency presentations, multilateral project pages, exchange education guides, and official speeches.
Level 3: reputable secondary source
Use for law firm briefings, financial media, professional commentary, research reports, and expert analysis that cite or interpret source evidence.
Level 4: OHUASI analytical inference
Use for conclusions drawn from evidence, such as risk framing, missing-document analysis, and diligence questions.
Level 5: unverified signal
Use for rumor, unattributed claims, social posts, promotional copy without evidence, or AI-generated summaries.
Claim-to-source fit
A source can be real but still insufficient for the claim.
Use this table:
| Claim type | Strong evidence | Weak evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Program inclusion | Decree or official program list | Media summary without source |
| Public offer launch | Prospectus, regulator, exchange, or offer notice | General market guide |
| Tender launch | Tender notice or bid documents | Rumored bidder names |
| Completion | Closing notice or updated ownership evidence | Agreement announcement without closing |
| Investor eligibility | Offer document or intermediary rules | General article about the market |
| Listing | Exchange admission or trading notice | Company saying it plans to list |
Status language control
Use this field to decide the strongest allowed word.
Strongest supported status word:
Evidence basis:
Words not allowed:
Reason not allowed:
Example:
Strongest supported status word: program inclusion
Evidence basis: official program document names the asset
Words not allowed: launched, open, completed
Reason not allowed: no offer, tender, or closing document reviewed
Metadata impact field
Every material source claim should be checked against metadata.
Meta title impact:
Meta description impact:
Snippet answer impact:
OG preview impact:
Schema summary impact:
Internal anchor text impact:
A page can become misleading because the metadata outruns the body.
Refresh trigger field
Each claim should identify what would change it.
Examples:
- New decree.
- Prospectus publication.
- Tender launch.
- Exchange notice.
- Regulator approval.
- Issuer filing.
- Financial statement update.
- Closing notice.
- Correction request.
- Source withdrawal.
Evidence confidence summary
Use this summary before publication.
Strongest source class used:
Weakest material source class used:
Claims requiring caveat:
Claims requiring refresh trigger:
Claims not suitable for metadata:
Claims requiring adviser review:
Red flags
Red flags include:
- A Level 3 source is used where a Level 1 source should exist.
- A source supports one claim but is used for several stronger claims.
- Metadata uses a status word not allowed by the log.
- An old source is used without a refresh trigger.
- A promotional source is treated as neutral evidence.
- AI-generated text appears as evidence.
Related OHUASI research
Use this template alongside:
- Source Transparency and Evidence Labels.
- How to Verify an African Privatization Source.
- Privatization Transaction Status Definitions.
- Corrections and Updates Policy.
- Programmatic Metadata Blueprint.
- Institutional Research Briefing Desk.
Disclaimer
This template supports research organization and source review. It does not provide investment, legal, tax, brokerage, underwriting, fiduciary, or securities advice.
Use these controlled entry points when the research moves from reading into committee review, source verification, or transaction screening.