HCDI Certified Indexer
Chapter 4. Source reliability, corroboration and the evidence states
Source note
Source basis - S2, physical PDF page 8.
HCDI methodology fact (the Evidence Source Map, as amended 20 October 2026; classification to be confirmed) and HCDI platform rule (Unit 2.4).
How reliable a source is depends on who produced it, how close they were to the facts, and whether anything independent supports it. Two sources agreeing is stronger than one only if they are independent of each other. Two employees repeating the same manager's account are one source, not two. The practitioner records how strongly each item stands up, as one of five states:
| Pilot state | Source meaning |
| Verified | Supported by a document, alone or with a second independent source. |
| Corroborated | Second independent source; no document. |
| Claimed - uncorroborated | One statement without confirmation. |
| Missing | Requested and not provided. |
| Contradicted | Sources disagree; public conflict workflow applies. |
Source qualification - the pilot marks classification of the amended Evidence Source Map as pending. These states are not numerical weights.
A new item is untagged until a status is chosen. An untagged item is never read as claimed, and it blocks submission for review until it is tagged. Tagging is a professional statement. Never change a status to make a flag go away. The states are an ordering only and carry no weights.
Red Flag. A reviewer asks you to "just tag it corroborated" to clear a blocking item. Tagging is a professional statement, and it does not belong to the person asking.
Agreement is not a reliability vote
Basis - general professional knowledge and editorial explanation. External references are identified explicitly; this section adds no HCDI rule.
Several sources can share an origin, incentive or mistake. Examine access to facts, timing and independence. A document supporting an item does not make every claim inside it true. The five-state source has classification pending in the pilot. General reasoning supplies no numerical weights for those labels.
Figure 2.4 Agreement is not a reliability vote. Original conceptual illustration; arrows organise the discussion and do not establish a validated causal effect or a scoring procedure.
Original exercise L2 E04
Basis - original fictional exercise. The organisation, events and any numbers are invented for learning. No HCDI result is assigned.
Three supervisors repeat a morning briefing figure. A payroll extract shows a different total for an earlier month.
| Analytical task | Learner response required |
| Observation | Identify what the stated record directly establishes. |
| Inference | State the interpretation that still needs support. |
| Alternative | Identify a plausible alternative or missing context. |
| Authority | Identify the relevant credential or role boundary. |
Question - Is this three confirmations against one document?
Worked answer: Part G, exercise L2 E04.