Evidence and sources

How the evidence ledger works

This evidence ledger is the boundary between a useful operator procedure and unsupported certainty. Each material record contains an identifier, a narrowly worded claim, an evidence status, a source title, a direct source URL, and a check date. Build context and conflict notes appear when relevant. The evidence status describes the source relationship, not whether a claim sounds plausible. A precise number with weak evidence remains weak.

Official evidence comes from the current Steam store, official Steam news, or a developer statement within the exact scope of that statement. Community evidence comes from player guides and discussions. It can identify recurring confusion, a technique worth testing, or a workflow that players find useful, but community evidence is not presented as an official mechanic. Unverified evidence is published only to explain a conflict or a deliberate feature boundary.

Evidence status definitions

Official evidence supports only the specific text visible in the linked official source. An official store description can confirm advertised scope, platform, and gameplay framing. It does not automatically confirm every number reported by a separate database. A developer reply can clarify the question it answers, but the evidence should not be stretched into a broader system claim.

Observed evidence requires a current-client capture with build context, visible labels, and a reproducible check. Corroborated evidence means independent sources agree within a narrow stated scope, but the claim is still not presented as official. These statuses exist so future scheduled research can raise confidence without erasing the difference between first-party claims and current play evidence.

Community evidence is labelled because the source is a player report, guide, or discussion. Community evidence is valuable for discovering real problems such as Mission 2 spotter confusion or uncertainty around counter-battery timing. It may also suggest a testable procedure. The public page either describes it as player-reported or uses it only to select what problem the guide should solve.

Unverified evidence means current-client proof is missing, available sources conflict, or the method cannot be reproduced with sufficient confidence. The firing elevation formula is unverified because public guides present conflicting expressions and scales. The planner therefore excludes automated game elevation. Stale evidence is an older record whose date or version makes it unsafe for current guidance until rechecked.

What does not count as game evidence

Competitor sites were reviewed as private product research to understand page structure, user flows, and missing tools. They are not the public game evidence source. Their shell totals, mission wording, coordinates, and database selections are not copied into this site. When a competitor value conflicts with official evidence or another community source, the conflict is recorded privately and the public fact remains unknown until independent evidence resolves it.

Search snippets, repeated social claims, page design, and confident language also do not raise evidence quality. A claim is not verified because many pages repeat it. The current game client can provide strong evidence for visible labels and behavior when captured with version context, but this launch does not pretend that automated research completed a full current-client audit. Missing evidence stays missing. The result is a smaller but inspectable first release.

How evidence changes a page

Evidence status controls wording and functionality. Official evidence can support a direct factual sentence within scope. Community evidence uses explicit attribution such as 'players report' and never becomes an official guarantee. Conflicting evidence can support a warning, but not a calculation. Missing evidence removes the claim or feature. That is why the firing planner calculates transparent map geometry while leaving shell behavior, charge, and elevation to the current client.

Evidence also controls indexability. A thin route with no complete procedure and no credible evidence should not enter the sitemap. The sitemap includes thirteen finished routes. Legal pages remain noindex. Future mission or shell routes require enough evidence to answer a specific user task, explain uncertainty, provide internal links, and survive a current-page review. A guessed table does not meet that threshold.

Evidence review procedure

1. Open the direct evidence URL and confirm it still supports the exact claim.
2. Record the current check date and any visible build or version context.
3. Search for conflicting official or current-client evidence before broadening the claim.
4. Keep community evidence attributed and separate from official evidence.
5. Remove or downgrade evidence when the source no longer supports current guidance.

A check date is not a permanent warranty. Official descriptions and game behavior can change. Each evidence review compares the current source with the current public wording. If the source disappears, changes scope, or gains a conflict, the evidence record must change before the page claims remain current. The patch evidence below is tied to build 1558 because that context matters.

Corrections and uncertainty

A correction should preserve what changed: old wording, new evidence, new wording, check date, and reason. The public site has no user-submitted comments or forms, so no private report data is collected. Readers can still inspect the direct sources and avoid a claim that does not match their current client. A future correction channel would need privacy and moderation rules before it could be added.

Evidence-first does not mean every guide waits for a complete database. Stable geometry, careful transcription, and a repeatable error ladder can be useful without claiming hidden mechanics. It means the guide distinguishes what is known, what players report, what remains unverified, and what the user must read from the current game. That distinction is the competitive strategy of this wiki: fewer claims, better evidence, and a real planner that stays inside its verified boundary.

Current evidence records

Continue from the evidence

Use the first firing solution for the full report-to-impact workflow. Open the private firing planner for deterministic spotter geometry. Visit the shell choice guide to see how the combined official ammunition-and-abilities claim limits the public arsenal page. Each route links back to the relevant evidence instead of hiding uncertainty in a generic footer.