Keep an evidence log that points to inspected source objects
An evidence log should record what you inspected and what the inspection established. A bookmark is not a review, and an opened PDF is not a verified claim. Keep the source object, the action, and the outcome in separate fields so later readers can reproduce the check.
W3C’s provenance overview distinguishes information about objects, activities, and the people involved in producing them. That provides conceptual background for logging research actions. The practical table below is a proposed manual convention, not a claim of formal PROV compliance or regulatory recordkeeping sufficiency.
Log an action rather than a confidence adjective
Start with source identity: title, issuer, date, version, and a stable reference in your archive. Add the inspected locator, such as section heading, clause, table, or visually checked page. Then describe the action: compared cover identity, read a paragraph in context, matched an exhibit, or checked a correction.
State the outcome narrowly. “The passage says approval is pending” differs from “the project is safe.” The first describes an inspected statement; the second is an interpretation requiring more evidence. A useful log keeps that interpretation outside the source-inspection field, connected by a claim reference if needed.
Hypothetical evidence-log row
Suppose fictional Orchard Water announces a facility plan. This case is invented and does not represent an actual review.
| Field | Hypothetical entry |
|---|---|
| Source ID | S-017; issuer notice; original version |
| Locator | Project section; final paragraph |
| Action | Read full paragraph and adjacent qualification |
| Result | Issuer describes a plan conditional on approval |
| Not checked | Approval record and later progress notices |
| Next evidence | Official approval or subsequent issuer update |
The row supports a claim about the wording inspected. It does not establish that approval will arrive. If someone later finds an approval notice, add another action row rather than rewriting the earlier action as though it included the later source.
Keep inspection states explicit
Use statuses that describe work performed: collected, identity checked, relevant section inspected, cross-reference followed, or pending access. Avoid a single “verified” flag unless you define its scope. A file may pass identity checks while its key agreement remains unread.
For a source used repeatedly, attach multiple inspection rows to the same source ID. This preserves the difference between checking one passage on Monday and a different appendix on Friday. It also prevents the most recent inspection date from obscuring which part was reviewed when.
Verify the log with a replay
Choose one row and follow its reference without searching the web again. Read the identified passage and confirm that the recorded result is supported. If the row says an attachment was checked, open the attachment. If a locator is too vague, repair it before treating the log as useful evidence.
The SEC guide can help navigate common filings, but a navigation guide is not a substitute for the company-specific object your log claims to inspect. Each result needs a direct relationship to the actual source and version.
Limitations and common mistakes
An evidence log does not prove the truth of every issuer statement, guarantee completeness, or replace the substantive reasoning in a research memo. Its job is to show what was checked and what remains open. Keep it light enough to maintain during ordinary work.
Common mistakes include pasting links without locators, using “reviewed” for an unread file, and deleting unresolved limits when a summary becomes shorter. Another is recording a broad conclusion in the source-result field. Preserve the distinction between observation, issuer assertion, interpretation, and unknown information.
A final record check
Use the log to answer a practical audit question: which material claim currently depends on an inspection that has not been completed? Join claim references to inspection states and review the gaps. The exercise can reveal a source that was collected but never read. Fixing that dependency is more valuable than merely increasing the number of rows marked reviewed.
FAQ
Should every paragraph get its own row?
No. Log the inspections that support material research claims or resolve important gaps. Use source and claim IDs to avoid duplicating routine notes.
Can a spreadsheet serve as an evidence log?
Yes. The value comes from accurate identity, action, locator, and outcome fields, not from a particular application or database design.