--- name: evidence-register description: "Whether a claim already circulating is actually backed by real evidence — measured data, direct observation, a documented case — or is still just being asserted, with every claim category that has zero evidence logged flagged plainly, not smoothed over. Use when: Specific claims are already circulating (a root cause, a fix that 'worked,' a customer who 'loves it') and you want to know honestly which ones are backed by real evidence. A decision is about to be made that assumes a claim is settled fact, and you want to check that assumption before committing further resources to it. You want to know which claim areas have no evidence logged at all yet, not just which claims feel confidently stated. Not for: You don't have a real claim to check yet — this register verifies claims already in circulation, it doesn't generate new ones. The claim is genuinely trivial or one-off, not something a real decision depends on — the overhead isn't worth it yet." --- # Evidence register Whether a claim already circulating is actually backed by real evidence — measured data, direct observation, a documented case — or is still just being asserted, with every claim category that has zero evidence logged flagged plainly, not smoothed over. Family: Problem solving / root cause analysis · Format: .xlsx · Domain: core ## What it is An evidence register is a real, checkable answer to 'do we actually know that, or are we just saying it' — a fixed set of claim categories, and for each one, the real evidence (or lack of it) actually backing it. 'Management by fact, not opinion' is the whole discipline: a claim with no evidence logged, or evidence that's never been re-confirmed, is named directly rather than quietly treated as settled. Evidence can decay — a root-cause claim gets superseded by a more careful later analysis, a customer proof point ages — so `verified` is something the practitioner re-confirms, never assumed true forever once entered. ## When to use it Use it when: - Specific claims are already circulating (a root cause, a fix that 'worked,' a customer who 'loves it') and you want to know honestly which ones are backed by real evidence. - A decision is about to be made that assumes a claim is settled fact, and you want to check that assumption before committing further resources to it. - You want to know which claim areas have no evidence logged at all yet, not just which claims feel confidently stated. Not when: - You don't have a real claim to check yet — this register verifies claims already in circulation, it doesn't generate new ones. - The claim is genuinely trivial or one-off, not something a real decision depends on — the overhead isn't worth it yet. ## How to fill it in - **scopeNotes** — What set of claims does this register cover? - **categories** — List every claim category you want checked for real evidence, even ones you expect are still empty. - **items** — For each item: the category it backs, the evidence type, source, date, and whether it's actually been verified — your own facts, never guessed. - **narrative** — Drafted from the register's own computed coverage. ## What good looks like The example below checks three claims already circulating about Line 2's changeover procedure and its recent on-time recovery — including one, honestly marked unverified, that the attribution reality check already showed could just as easily be explained by a concurrent confound rather than the change everyone's crediting. Full worked example, on-screen and as a downloadable .xlsx: https://www.katafacts.com/katas/evidence-register ## Common mistakes - **Marking a claim verified because it sounds right or everyone already believes it.** — A confident-sounding claim with no real basis is worse than an honest gap — it lets a decision get made on an assumption nobody actually checked. - **Treating a claim as permanently verified once confirmed, with no re-check.** — Evidence decays — a customer who once proved a claim can churn, a root cause can be superseded by a later, more careful analysis — verified status should reflect the last real check, not a one-time stamp. - **Leaving a category out of the register because you already suspect it has no evidence.** — An unlisted category can't be flagged as a gap — naming it and letting it come up empty is exactly how this tool surfaces the gap plainly instead of hiding it by omission. ## What it connects to Upstream: - **Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)** (`fmea`) — A documented, scored FMEA is real evidence for a risk-ranking claim — a stronger source than an unverified assertion, and this register is where that distinction actually gets recorded. - **Attribution reality check** (`attribution-reality-check`) — When an attribution reality check finds a claim's credit swings sharply across models, that's exactly the signal this register should record as unverified rather than letting the claim stand as settled. ## Where AI helps Judgement — stays with you: - Deciding whether something counts as real evidence or is still just an assertion - Deciding which coverage gap to close first Analysis — AI helps: - Tightening a claim's wording from rough notes into a specific, checkable statement - Drafting the narrative from the register's own computed coverage Drudgery — automated: - Identifying which categories have no evidence logged - Identifying which logged items are still unverified - Exporting to xlsx in the house format --- Evidence register is licensed [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Attribution: Katafacts (katafacts.com). ## Using this skill Apply this method as part of whatever broader task, instructions, or deliverable you're already working on -- it's a method to use, not a standalone conversation to start. There is no generation tool for this catalogue yet, so draft the artifact's actual content yourself, following the fields above, the same way a person filling this out by hand would. The canonical guide page and a downloadable worked example (.xlsx) are at https://www.katafacts.com/katas/evidence-register.