How this briefing decides what counts as evidence

1. Separate four kinds of statements

• Verified fact: directly supported by an official record or reliable contemporaneous reporting.
• Candidate statement: a position, promise or self-description attributable to the candidate.
• Analysis: an inference drawn from disclosed evidence and assumptions.
• Unknown: a material question for which sufficient evidence was not located.

2. Use an evidence hierarchy

1. Official legislation, votes, budgets, audits, disclosures, court records and agency data.
2. Full candidate interviews, debates, questionnaires and campaign documents.
3. Credible local reporting with named sources and linked records.
4. Advocacy reports and stakeholder analysis, clearly labeled for interest and methodology.
5. Social media only as evidence of what a candidate said—not whether it is true.

3. Score claims, not people

The site avoids a single numerical candidate score. A score compresses value judgments that differ among voters. Instead, it evaluates whether a claim is specific, within mayoral authority, financially identified, measurable and supported by comparable evidence.

4. Do not manufacture symmetry

All candidates receive a page, but research depth follows evidence availability and realistic electoral relevance. A candidate with an extensive public record receives more scrutiny. A candidate with little documentation receives explicit “unknown” findings rather than invented balance.

5. Distinguish outcome from attribution

An outcome occurring during an official’s term is not automatically caused by that official. The analysis asks what authority the office had, what decisions were made, what constraints existed and what counterfactual is plausible.

6. Treat funding as context, not proof

Contributions can reveal constituencies and incentives. They do not prove corruption or control. Self-financing can signal independence, wealth access, or limited donor breadth; interpretation requires caution.

7. Correction standard

A correction should identify the disputed sentence and provide a primary record or full-context source. Updates should preserve a revision log.

8. Concrete-example rule

No important conclusion should appear without at least one concrete example, measurable fact or cited historical action. Each example must also state what it proves, what it does not prove and what evidence would resolve the remaining uncertainty.

Current limitations

• This first version does not yet include a complete roll-call analysis of every Sugimura vote or every Bissen departmental metric.
• Several candidates have sparse public platforms.
• Candidate interviews were not conducted for this release.
• Bill 9 litigation, implementation and economic effects remain developing.