Methodology
An answer is only as trustworthy as the claim its source actually supports.
Evidella is designed to make the boundary between evidence and inference visible before customer-facing wording is approved.
The unit of review is the material claim
A source card beside an answer is not enough. Review asks whether the cited passage directly supports each material claim: the control, its scope, its status, any stated frequency, any date, and any commitment.
Three evidence states
Current approved material directly supports the answer's material claims for the relevant scope.
Evidence supports only part of the wording or leaves scope, timing, frequency, or implementation unproven.
No approved material supports a responsible answer. Evidella should flag the gap instead of inventing a response.
Source quality checks
- Authority: Is this source approved by the accountable owner?
- Applicability: Does it cover the product, environment, customer, and geography in the question?
- Freshness: Is it still current, or has the system or policy changed?
- Specificity: Does it prove the stated date, frequency, algorithm, certification, or commitment?
- Consistency: Does it agree with contracts, public material, and other approved answers?
Human approval remains decisive
Evidella drafts and organizes evidence. It does not replace legal, security, privacy, engineering, or commercial judgment. The responsible reviewer decides whether the final wording is accurate, sufficiently scoped, appropriate to disclose, and ready to send.
Fictional examples stay labelled
NimbusCore examples exist to demonstrate workflow states. They are never presented as customer results, Evidella controls, or reusable facts about another organization.