Define the Question
Begin with a specific, investigable question that does not smuggle a conclusion into the framing.
Investigation Protocol v1.2
PARALLAX is not neutral toward dogma.
We are willing to question accepted stories, official accounts, and institutional explanations. We are equally willing to reject an alternative when its evidence fails. Fair method does not require a balanced conclusion.
Inquiry standard
Questions without forensic closure still need discipline.
PARALLAX Inquiries are separate from investigations. They do not pretend that metaphysical, ethical, or experiential questions can always be settled like disputed events.
An inquiry defines the meanings hidden inside its question, compares the strongest relevant perspectives, states what each can and cannot establish, preserves contradictions, links useful sources, and ends with an open current read rather than a manufactured verdict.
Operating chain
From question to revision.
QuestionScopeInterpretationsSource planEvidence collectionVerificationStress-testLedgerCurrent readChallengeRevision
Narrative pressure test
Every public case follows the conflict.
The reader sees the accepted story, the strongest reasons it is questioned, the serious possibilities, the evidence for and against each, the missing pieces, and only then the current read.
Story we were givenWhy it is questionedPossibility mapEvidence reviewsWhat still does not sit rightCurrent read
Protocol steps
The core method.
Define Scope
Record the time period, event, actors, evidence categories, geographic limits, and excluded side questions so the case does not expand endlessly.
Record Initial Assumptions
Privately record starting belief, confidence, reasons, and what evidence would change the view. This is bias control, not evidence.
Establish Competing Interpretations
Name the accepted account and every serious competing possibility. State what each requires, what supports it, what weakens it, and what evidence is still missing.
Build the Evidence Plan
Identify the evidence categories most likely to distinguish the interpretations, including serious official, independent, dissenting, technical, eyewitness, archival, and unconventional material when it can move the case.
Verify Source Provenance
Ask who created each source, when, why, whether it is original or copied, whether the chain of custody is clear, what it actually establishes, and what limits its weight.
Stress-Test Each Interpretation
Ask what supports it, what contradicts it, what would prove it wrong, and what alternative explanation accounts for the same evidence.
Separate Fact from Interpretation
Label statements as fact, supported inference, disputed, speculation, unknown, or unverified claim.
Maintain the Ledgers
Keep an evidence ledger and an open-questions ledger so contradictory evidence and unresolved issues cannot be quietly selected away.
Publish the Current Read
After readers see the conflict and evidence, state where the record currently points, what still does not sit right, and what could change the assessment.
Revise or Reopen
Reopen cases when new evidence, authenticated sources, discredited sources, expert analysis, or corrected errors materially change the record.
Source weighting
Category is not credibility.
Official is not synonymous with true. Unofficial is not synonymous with false.
Category Is Not Credibility
Official is not synonymous with true. Unofficial is not synonymous with false. A source label identifies provenance and form; it does not decide the claim.
Evidence Carries The Weight
PARALLAX weighs sources by provenance, directness, methodology, corroboration, expertise, transparency, known limitations, and verification status.
Primary Evidence Comes First
Popularizers, documentaries, interviews, and advocacy sources can explain why a claim matters, but technical claims must be traced to primary evidence whenever primary evidence exists.
Media Clarifies, Evidence Decides
Embedded clips may help readers understand a claim or see public presentation, but they must be labeled by source type and cannot replace the underlying source trail.
No False Balance
Strong dissent should be included. Weak material should stay weak. The goal is exposure to the best available information, not an artificial 50/50 presentation.
No Authority Gets Closure for Free
Official findings, expert consensus, and institutional records matter. They close a question only when the underlying evidence and reasoning can carry that conclusion.
Source hierarchy
Evidence is weighted, not flattened.
Unverified does not mean false. It means unverified. Authority, dissent, and popularity are context; evidence is the basis.
Primary / Direct Evidence
Original documents, raw datasets, official records, unedited footage, photographs, physical evidence, firsthand testimony, laboratory results, and transcripts.
Technical / Scientific Analysis
Peer-reviewed work, engineering reports, forensic analysis, specialist reports, expert submissions, and technical critiques.
Independent Technical / High-quality Secondary Work
Independent technical critiques, investigative journalism, reputable historical synthesis, well-sourced books, and serious long-form reporting.
Advocacy / Interpretive Sources
Campaign groups, activist publications, advocacy websites, partisan analysis, and official public-relations material.
Unverified Material
Anonymous claims, unattributed screenshots, unsourced social posts, rumor, and reposted material with unclear provenance.
Review structure
Every major evidence category follows the same pattern.
- Core question
- Established observations
- Evidence quality
- Accepted / conventional reading
- Challenge / alternative reading
- Strengths and weaknesses
- PARALLAX current read
- Open questions
- Sources
Publication requirements
Before a case goes public.
- The primary question does not predetermine the answer.
- Scope is defined, including what the case is not trying to answer.
- Strongest serious interpretations are included.
- Major claims are sourced and primary sources are linked where possible.
- Unverified claims are labeled.
- Contradictory evidence remains visible.
- Source limitations are stated.
- Open questions remain visible.
- No private person is recklessly accused.
- Wording does not exceed the evidence.
Challenge and reopening
Reopening is the system working.
A case should be reopened when significant new evidence appears, an important source is authenticated or discredited, expert analysis materially changes, an error affects the overall conclusion, or a previously unresolved question becomes answerable.
Before publication PARALLAX asks: If someone who completely disagreed with us examined the report, could they understand how we reached our assessment?
They do not have to agree. They should be able to follow the evidence, reasoning, source trail, competing interpretations, and uncertainty.
Do not trust us because we say so. Check the sources. Truth should withstand a change in perspective.