Transparency
Stating principles is not enough. This is the shape those principles actually take on the page.
Five principles
- Transparency — fact and assumption are structurally separated in every piece. Sources are always a link away.
- Fact-based — nothing is published until it clears the source verification gate.
- Data protection — minimal collection. What is actually processed is set out, verifiably, in the privacy notice.
- Prepared for rebuttal — “what is the strongest objection?” is a required step, and the objection is not hidden from the piece.
- Accountability — a premise is never asserted as a prediction. Errors are not quietly fixed; a correction is recorded.
What you will see marked in a piece
Three layers
Principle 1 was designed with two layers: fact and assumption. Writing the first piece showed that a third was needed.
- Fact — stated in the body, with the source linked.
- [Premise] — set apart in its own block. “What if this were already real?” This is a coordinate, not a forecast.
- [Author’s position] — used where what the writer feels has to be disclosed. It marks where someone is standing, not a conclusion. The judgement still belongs to the reader.
Not drawing the conclusion for the reader is not the same as removing the writer. Principle 1 in fact requires that the writer’s position not be concealed.
Not yet verified
A bordered box at the foot of a piece means something in it has not yet been confirmed against a primary source.
It is not hidden in order to publish. Hiding it would leave the reader no way to check. When an item is confirmed, it comes out of the box and goes into the correction log.
Corrections
If the body changes after publication, what changed and why stays on the page. There are no silent edits.
Sources
Every piece carries a source list, and the same list is emitted as machine-readable structured data (citation). A person should be able to check it, and so should a machine.
What a person did and what an AI did
There is no reason to hide the process, so here it is.
| Stage | Who |
|---|---|
| Choosing the subject | Person |
| Gathering and organising sources | AI |
| Fixing the premise (“what if…”) | Person — not delegated |
| Drafting | AI |
| Judgement, revision, final approval | Person |
| Source verification | AI checks, person approves |
Fixing the premise is a judgement, not a calculation. It decides what this project is, so it is not delegated.
The three languages are not translations
The Korean, English and French versions are each written from the same source document. No version serves as the manuscript for another.
So each starts in a different place, uses different images, even a different grammatical person. Only four things have to match — the premise sentence, the fact/assumption separation, the sources, and the points raised in rebuttal.
Because these are not translations, the thinness of machine translation does not arise. A different risk does: the versions can drift apart. The drift watched for most closely is an assumption in one version becoming an assertion in another.
What is currently missing
- The privacy notice for this site has not been reviewed by a lawyer. The document says so itself.
- The quality of the French prose cannot be verified in-house. Structural accuracy is checked mechanically, but whether the French reads well needs a separate check, and no arrangement for that exists yet.
This list will be updated as items are closed.