Key idea & worked example
An assertion is an attributable claim. A review decision records how that claim is interpreted; a projection is a selected view of the reviewed knowledge.
A clean interface can present an editorial decision without deleting the evidence behind competing interpretations.See the worked example →On this page
A source may describe an instrument at a particular time, use a historical name, or disagree with another account. The research task is to retain that contextContextThe circumstances within which a statement applies, such as a historical configuration. Context is distinct from the history of how the statement was recorded.Work through the Cuntz example → while creating useful relationships and views.
Keep sources and assertions distinct
An attributed source accountSource accountAn attributed description associated with a particular source. Several accounts can describe one instrument without being identical or independent.Work through the Cuntz example → is evidenceEvidenceMaterial offered as grounds for a claim. Its relevance depends on the claim, context, transmission and interpretation.Work through the Cuntz example → that a statement was made. It does not automatically establish that the statement is correct, current or equivalent to another statement. Reconciliation therefore requires explicit decisions and the possibility of leaving a relationship unresolved.
How can two accounts disagree without corrupting the database?
An assertion is an attributable claim. A review decision records how that claim is interpreted; a projection is a selected view of the reviewed knowledge.
- Account AA sourced assertionIts source, scope and review status stay visible.
- Account BAnother sourced assertionRetain disagreement until its grounds are reviewed.
Work through the example 3 STEPS
The Cuntz thesis description and the digital inventory present different register counts. Treating the latest imported count as an unconditional replacement would erase the question the discrepancy raises.
Store both claims with their scope
Retain the four-register physical description and the five-label digital configuration, including their sources and intended subjects.
Review the relationship
Ask whether the accounts concern comparable states and counting units. The missing Regal 8′ mapping remains an explicit review issue rather than an invented explanation.
Publish an understandable view
A catalogue summary can show a selected statement and its qualification, while an evidence view exposes the other assertion and the reason the relationship remains unresolved.
- Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2 ↗
Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.
- MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0 ↗
Identity, state, configuration, evidence, assertions, context and provenance. Teaching examples explain its distinctions without inventing new normative properties.
- Dominik Ukolov · Musikinstrumente im virtuellen Raum (2026)
Submitted dissertation, 11 September 2026; §§8.2.2.1 and 8.4.1, printed pp. 264–265 and 275–276. The historical description and digital inventory require a resolved mapping; the manuscript is not redistributed here.
This is a teaching application of the assertion model, not a claim that a new authoritative review of the historical register mapping has been completed.
The useful distinction. A clean interface can present an editorial decision without deleting the evidence behind competing interpretations.
Document the transformation
Decision records explain interpretative choices. Execution records identify the software, parameters and inputs used in a computational step. Together they make the route to a result inspectable and help distinguish a changed interpretation from a changed processing environment.
Worked example: two specification accounts
Imagine two catalogues describing the same organ. One reports twelve stops; another lists fourteen. Before calculating a difference, ask what each source counts, which configurationConfigurationAn identified arrangement of components and their relationships. Rebuilding or reassigning parts can change a configuration while the instrument’s broader identity persists.Work through the Cuntz example → it describes and whether it is independent of the other. The disagreement might reflect an alteration, a counting convention, a copied mistake or an unresolved identity. This example is illustrative, not a claim about a particular reference instrument.
| Research step | Record to preserve |
|---|---|
| Identify the account | Source, fixed capture or edition, and the precise statement being used. |
| Interpret its scope | Instrument identity, configuration date, terminology and counting unit. |
| Compare the evidence | Agreement, conflict, dependency and alternative explanations. |
| Make a decision | Accepted, rejected or unresolved result, with reasons and accountable review. |
The useful output is not merely a preferred number. It is an attributable statement whose relationship to the two accounts remains inspectable. If the evidence cannot distinguish the alternatives, leaving the result unresolved is an informative outcome. A later source can then change the interpretation without erasing the earlier evidence.
Separate a processing failure from an uncertain claim
A parser may fail to recognize a date that is plainly present; that is a processing problem. A source may genuinely leave a date unspecified; that is a limitation of the evidence. Recording these separately prevents software improvements from being mistaken for new historical discoveries. It also helps direct review: correct a transformation when the source is clear, and seek additional evidence when it is not.
Assess the source for this particular claim
PLENUM’s thesis model starts from a proposition, a source fragment, a subject identity, an instrument stateInstrument stateA historically scoped condition or arrangement of an instrument. A statement about one state should not automatically describe the instrument at every date.Work through the Cuntz example → and a time scope. It considers provenanceProvenanceThe documented origin and processing or editorial history of a resource or statement. It explains how a result came about.Work through the Cuntz example → integrity, directness, author competence, temporal fit, methodological rigor, location specificity and contextual completeness. The same publication can therefore be strong evidence for one statement and weak evidence for another. An account close to a rebuilding event may still say little about the instrument’s original construction.
Keep source suitability, extraction quality and entity matching separate. An accurately transcribed passage can be attached to the wrong instrument; a correct identity match can point to a weak source. The documented policy combines indicators as a heuristic, not a probability that a historical claim is true. Missing assessment is not positive evidence. When strong accounts disagree, the research record should retain a contested claim rather than hide the conflict inside an average.
Source dependence also matters. Several catalogues repeating one earlier account do not provide several independent confirmations. PLENUM groups shared evidence lineages for assessment while retaining the individual accounts. This is a practical treatment of dependence, not proof of statistical independence between the remaining groups.
Do three copies of a value count as three measurements?
Source dependence means that apparently separate records may derive from the same underlying evidence. Corroboration needs attention to that shared origin.
- Original sourceOne recorded observationThe evidence begins at an identified source.is copied or transformed
- Derivative copiesSeveral displaysSpreadsheets, exports and graphs may repeat it.retains the same lineage
- Evidence countOne lineageRepetition does not create independent measurement.
Work through the example 3 STEPS
Imagine the Cuntz value 1281 mm appearing in a workbook, an exported JSON observation and a catalogue summary based on that export. Only the first two are the concrete record types used here; the catalogue repetition is illustrative.
Trace each occurrence
The JSON observation points to the workbook cell. The hypothetical summary points to that observation. These records form a derivation chain.
Count the evidence correctly
Three appearances of the value do not establish three independent measurement sessions. Repeating an extraction in another file adds accessibility, not an independent observation.
Seek a genuinely different check
An independently documented measurement or suitable calibrated survey could support comparison. Its own conditions and uncertainty would still need inspection.
- Cuntz Positiv · VAO 0.5.0-rc.2 ↗
Published manifest: identities, measurement observations, realization digests, profiles and rights. Exact examples checked against this release.
- MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0 ↗
Identity, state, configuration, evidence, assertions, context and provenance. Teaching examples explain its distinctions without inventing new normative properties.
This example supplies no additional independent measurement of the Cuntz pipe.
The useful distinction. Count independent evidence, not the number of places where a claim is repeated.