> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/workflow-guides/analyse/evidence-quality.md).

# Evidence Quality

**Open this area:** In the CORTEX menu, select **Sources & evidence → Evidence memory**.

Record six separate data-quality observations within explicit sample bounds, then retain accountable review or collection actions.

**Who uses this:** Analyst, Collector, Reviewer. **Open in CORTEX:** `/memory`. **In-app guide:** `/help?topic=evidence-quality`.

**Expected result:** An exact extraction has an attributable quality history, limitations and owned defects with deliberate resolutions.

## Before you start

* Use the intended workspace with current Memory access to the material and exact extraction.
* Current processing-review permission is needed to record assessments, open defects or resolve actions.
* Inspect the original context. A quality assessment cannot grant scan clearance, collection authority or permission to distribute a product.

## What to do

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

## Open the exact quality history

In retained material, select an extraction version and choose **Quality assessments and defects**. Inspect the current assessment and earlier revisions before adding another.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Record scope and sample

Choose **Record or correct assessment**. State what was examined, sampling method, sample size/bounds and limitations. Your authenticated identity becomes the responsible owner of this assessment.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Assess all six dimensions

For completeness, uniqueness, consistency, timeliness, validity and accuracy, record the relevant observation or explicitly select **Not applicable** and explain why.

There is no aggregate score and no automatic source credibility judgement.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Retain the assessment

Review inherited handling and the correction reason, then select **Retain quality assessment**.

It appends a revision; the original extraction and earlier assessment remain unchanged.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Open an accountable defect

Choose **Open a defect and accountable action**. Name the defect, its impact and a review or collection action.

**Retain defect and action** makes you its responsible action owner.

Use **Review authorised collection plans** for the linked requirement when new collection is needed; collection still requires its normal authority and tasking.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Qualify a disputed claim

Choose **Qualify a disputed claim** after retaining an assessment. Select the exact original passage, distinguish observed fact, reported assertion, opinion, inference or unassessed content with reasons, and record a qualification and accountable action.

Reference the reviewed subject-category scheme and edition, enter 1–10 distinct labels with uncertainty, then adopt the applicable approved profile.

Current corpus access and a ready approved profile are required; the system does not assign legal categories automatically.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Resolve deliberately

Choose **Resolve a retained defect**, select the open issue and explain the completed action, retained evidence references and remaining limitations.

**Retain defect resolution** records your identity and outcome without erasing the original defect or changing an analytical conclusion.

A disputed passage remains qualified in history; affected Analysis and Product citations use Evidence corrections for deliberate downstream review. Overlapping new citations also show the dispute while it remains open.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Check the result

* Does the stated scope match the exact extraction?
* Are sample bounds and unknowns explicit?
* Does each dimension have a substantive observation or exclusion reason?
* Is each defect owned with a practical next action?
* Does the resolution explain retained evidence and remaining limitations?

## If you get stuck

<details>

<summary>What happens after a conflict or failed save?</summary>

Validation and conflict failures keep your entered values without claiming success. Inspect them, explicitly clear the draft, refresh the retained history and reconcile the new version.

Refresh and action switching are disabled while a draft has changes. Access-denied or unavailable-record responses clear the protected history and draft.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why can I no longer see the history?</summary>

Every read checks current Memory, workspace, full history handling and exact original extraction. Revoked access or an inconsistent target makes it unavailable without revealing protected contents.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Does a complete sample prove the claim is credible?</summary>

No. Completeness describes the stated scope/sample. Source reliability, information credibility, interpretation and analytical confidence retain their own workflows.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Does resolving a defect correct the original or released product?</summary>

No. The defect and its resolution are retained separately. Inspect dependent conclusions and follow their deliberate correction/review workflow; originals and already retained products are never silently rewritten.

</details>

## Responsibility and limits

* Recording an assessment makes you its responsible owner. Opening a defect makes you the action owner; a different authorised reviewer may record its resolution with their own attribution.
* Assessment corrections cannot remove defects. Closed resolutions cannot be overwritten; record a new defect if further work is needed.
* The history retains at most 64 events, 16 defects and 4 MiB. Capacity reserves room to resolve open defects and never prunes history.
* Quality review can inspect a retained extraction during reprocessing. This does not authorise fresh citation, original download or use of quarantined bytes.

**Reference and scope:** Supports F10-R02 and F10-R05, derived from the reviewed Government Data Quality Framework. Data quality and source credibility remain distinct judgements.

## Related workflows

* [Find evidence and select exact retained passages](/sources-and-evidence/memory.md)
* [Preserve an original and review processing](/workflow-guides/collection/ingest.md)
* [Interpret, translate and cite exact evidence passages](/sources-and-evidence/interpretation.md)
* [Plan collection and record observed results](/workflow-guides/collection/collection-plans.md)
* [Develop and independently review an assessment](/workflow-guides/analyse/analysis.md)
* [Author an intelligence Product and inspect its exports](/workflow-guides/products/product-drafts.md)
* [Review downstream evidence corrections](/workflow-guides/analyse/evidence-corrections.md)
* [Handle rights requests and retain response evidence](/workflow-guides/assurance/rights-cases.md)