TheVault:Case Assessment Process

THE VAULT DOCUMENT

Case Assessment Process

DOCUMENT TYPE Archive Procedure

STATUS Active

VERSION 1.0

The Vault Case Assessment Process defines the method used to research, document and evaluate cases within The Vault.

The process ensures that articles are structured consistently and that reported events, available evidence, investigations and possible explanations are clearly separated.

The purpose of case assessment is not to prove or disprove a claim before investigation. Instead, The Vault aims to document:

• What was reported.
• What evidence exists.
• What investigations have taken place.
• What explanations have been proposed.
• How strong the available evidence appears.

Overview

Every case documented within The Vault should be assessed through a structured process.

The assessment process consists of:

1. Identification
2. Documentation
3. Historical research
4. Evidence review
5. Explanation analysis
6. Assessment and classification

Each stage contributes to the final article and evidence evaluation.

Stage 1: Identification

The first stage is identifying the subject being documented.

Researchers should establish:

• What is the case?
• What type of phenomenon is involved?
• Where did it occur?
• When did it occur?
• Who reported or investigated it?

Examples of case types include:

• Haunted locations.
• UFO or UAP sightings.
• Cryptid encounters.
• Historical mysteries.
• Unexplained events.
• Paranormal investigations.

The initial classification determines the appropriate article structure and categories.

Stage 2: Documentation

The next stage is establishing what has been reported.

This includes collecting:

• Witness accounts.
• Contemporary reports.
• Historical records.
• Investigation notes.
• Photographs.
• Audio or video material.
• Official documentation.

At this stage, researchers should record the claim without attempting to explain it.

Example:

Documented:

"Several witnesses reported seeing an unusual object over the area on a specific date."

Not yet established:

"The object was an extraterrestrial spacecraft."

The first statement records the report. The second is an interpretation requiring evidence.

Stage 3: Historical research

Many Vault cases involve events that developed over time.

Historical research examines:

• Original accounts.
• Newspaper archives.
• Government records.
• Books.
• Previous investigations.
• Changes in the story over time.

Researchers should identify:

• The earliest known report.
• How the story developed.
• Whether later accounts differ from original records.

Later retellings may add details that were not present in earlier sources.

Stage 4: Evidence review

Evidence is reviewed based on quality rather than quantity.

Important factors include:

Source reliability

Consider:

• Who provided the information?
• How close were they to the event?
• Is the source independent?
• Does the source provide supporting material?

Physical evidence

Where available, assess:

• Photographs.
• Recordings.
• Objects.
• Environmental data.
• Biological evidence.
• Scientific measurements.

Witness evidence

Witness accounts should consider:

• Number of witnesses.
• Consistency.
• Timing of reports.
• Conditions during observation.
• Possible explanations.

Witness testimony can be important evidence, but it should be assessed alongside other information.

Stage 5: Investigation review

Where investigations have taken place, The Vault documents:

• Who conducted the investigation.
• When it occurred.
• Methods used.
• Evidence collected.
• Conclusions reached.

Investigations should be evaluated separately from their conclusions.

Example:

Documented:

"A paranormal group conducted an investigation and recorded unexplained audio."

Assessment:

"The recording requires further analysis and alternative explanations must be considered."

An investigation occurring does not automatically validate the explanation proposed by investigators.

Stage 6: Alternative explanations

A complete assessment considers possible conventional explanations.

These may include:

• Misidentification.
• Human error.
• Environmental conditions.
• Natural phenomena.
• Equipment malfunction.
• Fraud or hoax.
• Incomplete information.

Considering alternatives does not mean dismissing a claim.

It ensures that conclusions are based on the strongest available evidence.

Stage 7: Evidence assessment

After reviewing the available information, cases may receive an assessment using:

• TheVault:Evidence Rating System

Factors considered include:

• Quality of evidence.
• Reliability of sources.
• Independent confirmation.
• Reproducibility.
• Alternative explanations.
• Remaining uncertainty.

A case may be:

• Historically significant but poorly evidenced.
• Well documented but open to interpretation.
• Supported by multiple forms of evidence.
• Explained through conventional means.

Article structure guidelines

Where appropriate, case articles should include:

Introduction

A brief overview of the case.

Background

Historical and contextual information.

The event

A detailed account of what was reported.

Investigation

Details of research or investigations.

Evidence

Available supporting and opposing information.

Explanations

Possible interpretations and alternatives.

Cultural impact

The influence of the case on media, folklore or public interest.

Assessment

A summary of the current evidence position.

Relevant templates may include:

• Template:InfoboxCase
• Template:InfoboxLocation
• Template:VaultEvidence
• Template:VaultLocationBrief

Neutral language

Articles should distinguish between reports and confirmed facts.

Preferred wording:

• "Witnesses reported..."
• "Investigators claimed..."
• "The case remains unexplained..."
• "No confirmed explanation has been established..."

Avoid:

• "This proves..."
• "Scientists confirmed..."
• "A ghost definitely appeared..."
• "Aliens were responsible..."

unless supported by appropriate evidence.

Updating assessments

Case assessments are not permanent conclusions.

Articles should be updated when:

• New evidence appears.
• Historical information changes.
• New investigations are published.
• Previous claims are challenged.

The purpose of reassessment is accuracy, not promoting or dismissing a particular viewpoint.

Related documents

• TheVault:Research Methodology
• TheVault:Source Guidelines
• TheVault:Scientific Method
• TheVault:Evidence Rating System
• TheVault:Writing Guidelines