Case files
The map shows breadth. Case files show depth: a narrowly framed question, the strongest available records, a chronology, visible evidence labels, direct receipts and an explicit list of what the evidence does not establish.
Reading rule
The cited source directly supports the narrow claim in the file.
Multiple documented facts support the interpretation, but the conclusion remains interpretive.
The answer is not established, so the file says so instead of filling the gap.
Material evidence or credible accounts conflict and the disagreement is preserved.
Flagship files
Question: What does CPI publicly document about its role in staffing, training, coalition-building and organizational incubation?
Boundary: An infrastructure ecosystem is not the same claim as a secret command structure.
Open file →Question: What did the project itself say it was building across policy, personnel, training and implementation?
Boundary: A blueprint does not by itself prove that every later administration action came from it.
Open file →Question: What is documented about EIN, Heather Honey and federal voter-data flows, and where does the source chain remain unresolved?
Boundary: No vendor or original source is named unless the public record identifies it.
Open file →What every file should answer
Every case file should make it easy to see what the record establishes, what interpretation follows from those facts, what remains unknown, and what the page is explicitly not claiming.
Challenge the work
If a source is wrong, stale, incomplete or better evidence changes the conclusion, the page should change with it.
