This matrix prevents the finished book from presenting the proposed Reparation Bond architecture as though it were established historical fact or settled law.
| Statement type | Required treatment | Evidence standard | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Documented historical fact | State as fact only where source supports it | Primary source or reliable scholarship | Historic public debt or reparations event |
| Current legal/regulatory proposition | State jurisdiction/date and avoid overgeneralisation | Legislation, regulator, court or qualified advice | Rules affecting an offer or promotion |
| Financial/accounting mechanism | Explain mechanics and assumptions | Authoritative accounting/finance material | Issuer liability versus creditor asset |
| Analysis/inference | Label reasoning rather than fact | Underlying facts + explicit reasoning | Why a financing gap may exist |
| John Canoe – Derrick Lynch proposal | Clearly identify as proposed architecture | Internal consistency + external legal review where necessary | Latent Reparation Bond lifecycle |
| Forecast / hypothetical model | State assumptions and uncertainty | Transparent calculation, not prediction | Illustrative interest/maturity scenario |