Method / Note 4
Our Evidence Labels
The controlled vocabulary RecordStrata uses to keep findings, statements, synthesis, silence, conflict, and uncertainty from being flattened into one voice.
At a glance
- Attribution is part of the evidence, not a stylistic choice.
- Agency findings are kept separate from interview accounts and analyst synthesis.
- "Could not determine," "did not contribute," and "not stated" are different outcomes.
- A contradiction is preserved as a feature of the record, not repaired in the narrative.
- Analyst inference is used sparingly and must be expressly identified as inference.
Why a controlled vocabulary is necessary
Investigation reports mix several kinds of statements: measurements, witness accounts, investigator conclusions, operator explanations, corrective actions, and enforcement allegations. Structured accident and penalty datasets add another layer. A useful research product must preserve those distinctions while still allowing the reader to see the combined pattern.
RecordStrata uses evidence labels to make the status of each material proposition visible. The labels govern Deep-Reads, Ask the Record answers, tables, timelines, and related data products. They are designed to prevent a common failure in automated and manual research alike: turning every retrieved sentence into an undifferentiated "fact."
The evidence-label framework
| Label | Meaning | Illustrative phrasing |
|---|---|---|
| Source fact | A factual statement printed in an identified source, without adopting a further conclusion. | "The report identifies the vehicle as a Getman A64 lube/fuel truck." |
| Agency finding | A conclusion expressly reached by MSHA or another identified authority. | "MSHA found that the defective backup camera contributed to the accident." |
| Interview account | A statement the source attributes to an interviewee or participant. | "The utility miner told investigators the foot brake had to be pushed very hard." |
| Corrective action | A post-incident action the source says the operator or another party implemented. | "The operator installed a second independent front brake system." |
| RecordStrata synthesis | A supported summary assembled from one or more source passages. | "The report presents a management-knowledge record." |
| RecordStrata label | A concise analytical term used to organize the source, not language attributed to the agency. | "Dual citation" for parallel operator and contractor enforcement. |
| Analyst inference | A reasoned conclusion not expressly stated in the source and clearly marked as inference. | "The sequence may warrant further inquiry into coordination." |
| External-data fact | A fact drawn from a linked structured dataset rather than the investigation report. | "The Part 50 record supplies the canonical accident date." |
| Contributed | The agency expressly determined that the factor contributed to the accident or severity. | Defective backup camera: contributed. |
| Not contributing | The agency expressly determined that the factor did not contribute. | Bear Run Part 48 gap: did not contribute to the specific accident. |
| Found compliant | The agency expressly found compliance for the stated issue. | Nevada training records: compliant with Part 48. |
| Could not determine | The agency considered the issue but could not reach a conclusion. | Bear Run wind contribution: could not determine. |
| Not stated | The source does not address or identify the matter. | Bear Run telehandler manufacturer or model: not stated. |
| Contradiction | Two source passages or records materially conflict. | Nevada berm duration: one and a half months versus approximately two months. |
| Open question | A material issue requires another record, testimony, or investigation. | Why the telehandler was removed from the Bear Run worksite. |
Core labels in practice
Source fact
A source fact reports what the document states or depicts without adopting a broader conclusion. Source facts include dates, measurements, equipment identifiers, locations, quoted procedures, and the existence of an enforcement action. The phrase should identify the source where attribution matters.
Example: the Longview report states that three miners were riding a two-person personnel carrier. That is a source fact. The further conclusion that excess riders contributed to the severity of the accident is an agency finding because the report expressly says so.
Agency finding
An agency finding is a conclusion expressly reached by the investigating or adjudicative authority. It should be attributed to that authority and should not be generalized beyond the words or scope of the source.
Interview account
An interview account is not converted into an independent finding merely because it appears in an official report. It remains attributed to the person or role identified by the source. The agency may later rely on that account in reaching a finding, but the two steps should remain visible.
RecordStrata synthesis and RecordStrata label
Synthesis organizes supported facts into a concise analytical account. A label gives that account a memorable name. Both must remain visibly attributed to RecordStrata.
"The management-knew record" is synthesis: it draws together the abandoned berm procedure, management’s daily travel through the area, examination concerns, and the longstanding camera condition. "The dual citation" is a label: it describes the exact parallel citations to the operator and contractor in Bear Run. Neither phrase is presented as verbatim MSHA language.
Analyst inference
Inference is used only where the record supports a reasoned implication but does not state it directly. The language must signal the status – for example, "may indicate," "supports further inquiry," or "RecordStrata infers." Inference should not appear where the source provides an express finding or where the evidence is too incomplete to support a disciplined conclusion.
Outcome labels that must not be collapsed
| Label | Required reading |
|---|---|
| Contributed | The agency expressly links the factor to the accident or its severity. Attribute the conclusion and preserve its scope. |
| Not contributing | The agency expressly rules out contribution for the stated factor. This does not necessarily establish general compliance. |
| Found compliant | The agency expressly finds compliance with the identified requirement or training standard. This is not a finding about unrelated issues. |
| Could not determine | The issue remains unresolved. Do not rewrite it as contribution, non-contribution, or exoneration. |
| Not stated | The source is silent. Do not assume the issue was investigated and cleared. |
| Contradiction | The source contains materially inconsistent statements. Carry both unless another authoritative source resolves them. |
| Open question | The existing collection does not answer the issue; another record or inquiry is required. |
Examples of correct and incorrect phrasing
| Record state | Correct phrasing | Do not say |
|---|---|---|
| Could not determine | "Investigators could not determine whether wind contributed." | "Wind did not contribute." |
| Not stated | "The report does not identify the telehandler manufacturer or model." | "The manufacturer is unknown." |
| No defect finding | "The report makes no equipment-defect finding concerning the screens." | "The equipment was not defective." |
| Non-contributing violation | "The training gap was identified but expressly found not to have contributed." | "Training was not an issue." |
| Conflict | "The report prints two different durations and does not reconcile them." | "The berm was missing for two months." |
| Interview account | "A miner told investigators the brake deficiency had been reported." | "Management knew," unless the agency or supported synthesis establishes that conclusion. |
| Analyst label | "RecordStrata describes the parallel actions as a dual citation." | "MSHA called this a dual citation." |
How labels appear in a Deep-Read
Quotations identify the source and page.
Agency conclusions use attribution such as "MSHA found," "investigators determined," or "the decision held."
Interview statements identify the speaker or role where the source does.
RecordStrata synthesis is introduced as synthesis and is not placed in quotation marks.
Analytical table headings may use RecordStrata labels, but the label is identified as "our label" or equivalent.
Limitations sections use precise terms such as "not stated," "could not determine," and "requires another dataset."
Contradictions show both values and the locations in which they appear.
How labels appear in Ask the Record
The answer interface should make the evidence status visible in ordinary language. It need not burden every sentence with a technical tag, but it should signal the distinction: "The report states..." for a source fact; "MSHA found..." for an agency conclusion; "A witness told investigators..." for an interview account; and "The collection does not state..." for silence.
Where an answer synthesizes multiple passages, the response should say so and cite each supporting page. Where the collection conflicts or the agency could not determine the issue, the answer should present that state directly rather than selecting the most convenient passage.
Three difficult distinctions
Silence is not clearance
The Bear Run report does not identify the telehandler manufacturer or model and makes no equipment-defect finding. That means the report cannot support an affirmative defect claim. It also does not support the broader assertion that the telehandler or screens were affirmatively cleared of every defect. The source is limited.
Violation is not causation
Bear Run identified missing Part 48 Experienced Miner Training but expressly found that the gap did not contribute because it would not have covered the specific task. The same report treated task-training failure for the disassembly as causal. The label prevents a violation finding from being automatically converted into a causation finding.
Policy is not implementation
The Young Mine report describes a written policy requiring remote operation from behind a cab line because of known hazardous ground. It also states that investigators could not determine why the operator was in the cab beyond that line. The existence of the policy is a source fact; compliance in the fatal event is not inferred; the reason for the departure remains an open question.
The review rule
The objective
Evidence labels do not make the writing mechanical. They make the writing trustworthy. By preserving the speaker, source function, degree of certainty, and limits of the record, they allow a concise report or answer to remain faithful to a complex evidentiary file.
The same sentence can be a fact, a finding, an account, or an inference. The label tells the reader which one it is.
Source notes
The examples in this Method Note are drawn from the following records. Page references are to the cited as-published or Deep-Read edition.
1. "A Berm That Management Chose Not to Build," MSHA Fatality Deep-Read Series No. 1, Nevada Gold Mines, LLC, dated September 7, 2026, especially pp. 2-4.
2. "Eleven Minutes: A Coordination Failure, Cited Twice," MSHA Fatality Deep-Read Series No. 2, Peabody Bear Run Mining LLC, dated September 7, 2026, especially pp. 3-4.
3. MSHA Report of Investigation, Longview Mine, Century Mining LLC, fatal powered-haulage accident of March 22, 2023, especially PDF pp. 8 and 11.
4. MSHA Report of Investigation, Young Mine, Nyrstar Tennessee Mines, fatal fall of roof or back accident of July 12, 2025, especially PDF p. 6.