How the Council adjudicates a report.

The Council issues one of four verdicts on every report it accepts for review. Each verdict is a defined position, not a default.

The four verdicts

Confirmed

Multiple independent witnesses, sensor data, and the absence of any plausible mundane explanation. Confirmed verdicts are rare and remain provisional pending further evidence.

Inconclusive

The most common verdict. The report is credible and the available evidence does not determine the outcome. "Inconclusive" is not a deferred conclusion; it is a conclusion that the question is open.

Debunked

The report is fully accounted for by a known phenomenon — astronomical, meteorological, technological, or perceptual. The Council names the explanation explicitly.

Watching

The report concerns an active or unfolding situation. The Council reserves judgment pending further data, with the question on the open docket.

Evidentiary standards

Every claim of fact must be supported by a citable source. The Council prefers, in this order: primary government records, peer-reviewed scientific literature, contemporaneous documentation, and credible journalism. We attribute, footnote, and link.

Revision policy

Verdicts are revised when the evidence is. Revisions are recorded in the case file with the date and the reason; original wording is preserved. The Council changes its mind when the record requires it.

What we do not do

• We do not speculate about the origin of unexplained reports.
• We do not endorse contact narratives that lack a public evidentiary record.
• We do not amplify reports we cannot review.
• We do not publish without sources.