Evidence Tags
Evidence tags tell you how strong a claim is allowed to sound. They are not decorative labels and they are not a general vibe check. They are rhetorical ceilings.
That means a page tagged or badged as heuristic cannot be written somewhere else on the same page as if the same claim were settled science. The whole point of the tag system is to stop that kind of inflation.
What This Page Explains
This page defines the evidence tags used across the JB wiki and explains what each tag permits in prose. It also explains the cross-species rule, which is one of the easiest places for a page to sound stronger than the evidence actually justifies.
If you only remember one line from this page, remember this: the tag tells you how far the language is allowed to go.
Core Explanation
The main evidence tags are these:
- Documented means the claim rests on direct, recoverable evidence and may be stated with high confidence within the limits of the cited literature.
- Documented - Cross-Species means the evidence is documented in another species or neighboring domain, but the canine application still requires a separate interpretive bridge.
- Observed means JB is reporting a stable operational observation rather than a claim established by peer-reviewed direct evidence.
- Estimated means the claim is a calculation, projection, or quantified inference built from stated assumptions.
- Heuristic means the claim is an interpretive frame, a practitioner model, or a working explanation rather than a settled empirical finding.
- Ambiguous means the evidence is mixed, incomplete, or genuinely contested.
- Mixed Evidence means a page is carrying more than one evidence weight across its claim set and should be read with extra care.
The cross-species rule matters because "documented somewhere" is not the same as "documented in dogs." A mechanism can be well documented in rats or humans while the canine application remains interpretive. When JB handles that honestly, you should see both parts of the claim kept separate.
This is one of the strongest reasons the tag system exists at all. Without it, a page can move from "documented in another species" to "therefore true of household Golden Retrievers" in one rhetorical jump. The tag system is designed to slow that jump down and make the bridge visible.
The tag is also what disciplines openings and summaries. The sentence most likely to be quoted by a reader or a model is often the first sentence, the pull-quote line, or the family-facing summary. Those are exactly the places where inflation tends to happen if the tag is not treated as a real ceiling.
How to Use This
When you read an entry, do not assume the page-level framing tells you the whole story. Look at the inline tags where the claims are actually being made.
If the page uses a heuristic or ambiguous tag, read the confident-looking language more slowly. The right question is not "do I agree with this?" The right question is "is the rhetoric matching the tag, or has the page drifted upward into stronger language than the tag allows?"
If the page uses cross-species support, ask two separate questions. What is actually documented in the studied species? Then, how strong is the canine bridge? A good page will help you answer both without pretending they are the same question.
See Also
Sources or Governing References
- Internal authority: the Scientific Claims Register and HWW evidence-tag discipline.
- Public companion pages: Verification and Scientific Claims Register.
- Public observable pattern: inline evidence badges across standard topical entries.