ACTUAL GENERATED REPORT · FICTIONAL INPUTS
Evidence & Decision Register
Maintain a source register, source conflicts and decision history with explicit confidence, expiry and review dates in a portable offline record.
This public sample is generated by the actual workspace using its included fictional example. It shows a report, not the editable paid software. Read the limitations and unresolved checks alongside the results.
In the complete download
- Source provenance and freshness register
- Explicit source-to-decision links
- Unresolved conflict queue
- Decision review calendar and confidence checks
- Version history and evidence report
Self-contained HTML in a current desktop browser; responsive mobile layout. No network, account, AI or installation required. ZIP extraction is required. Browser printing provides PDF output; local file storage varies by browser.
Evidence & Decision Register
Fictional worked example — Evidence & Decision Register
As of 2026-10-18 • CAD
Planning record • no automatic commitments
SIMULATION. All organizations, events, prices and evidence are invented for practice. Replace them with your own supported inputs.
Readiness
- RECORDED: Decision boundary defined — Name the question, owner and evidence standard.
- REVIEW: Sources current and traceable — Check provenance, dates, confidence and conflicts.
- REVIEW: Conflicts resolved — A resolved conflict needs written rationale.
- REVIEW: Decision evidence ready — Every decision needs usable linked evidence and an accountable rationale.
- RECORDED: Review dates scheduled — Due or missing review dates require attention.
Usable sources: 0 / 2
Unresolved conflicts: 1
Decisions due for review: 0
Decision boundary
Should the next workshop use an offline pack or a hosted platform?
Current source reference, task observation and explicit contradictory evidence.
SIMULATION only. No real buyer or participant records.
Source freshness
| ID | Source | Observed | Review / expiry | Confidence | Usable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| src1 | SIMULATION: task log, revision A | 2026-10-16 | 2026-11-30 | medium | No |
| src2 | SIMULATION: feature sheet, revision B | 2026-10-15 | 2026-11-01 | low | No |
Conflicts
| Sources | Issue | State | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| src1 / src2 | Practical account-free access has not been compared with the supplier description. | unresolved |
Decision review queue
| Decision | Choice | Source IDs | Evidence ready | Review due | Next review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Which format should be tested first? | Test the internal pack first | src1, src2 | No | No | 2026-10-30 |
Confidence limits
Confidence labels are the author’s judgments. The register does not authenticate documents, fetch sources or prove a claim. A review date is a prompt for human review, not a certification.
1. Define the decision boundary — entered detail
Decision area: Workshop delivery format
Accountable role: Program coordinator
Main decision question: Should the next workshop use an offline pack or a hosted platform?
Evidence standard: Current source reference, task observation and explicit contradictory evidence.
Known limitations: SIMULATION only. No real buyer or participant records.
2. Register sources — source records
| Record | Entered detail |
|---|---|
| src1 | Evidence title: Fictional facilitator rehearsal Source reference (plain text): SIMULATION: task log, revision A Observed on: 2026-10-16 Review / expiry date: 2026-11-30 Confidence: medium What this source supports and what it does not: Offline pack opened on two test devices; broader compatibility unknown. Conflict state: none |
| src2 | Evidence title: Fictional supplier feature sheet Source reference (plain text): SIMULATION: feature sheet, revision B Observed on: 2026-10-15 Review / expiry date: 2026-11-01 Confidence: low What this source supports and what it does not: Supplier describes offline access, but the account requirement is unclear. Conflict state: unresolved |
3. Resolve contradictions — source records
| Record | Entered detail |
|---|---|
| con1 | First source: src1 Second source: src2 Contradiction: Practical account-free access has not been compared with the supplier description. Resolution state: unresolved Resolution and rationale: Not entered |
4. Record and revisit decisions — source records
| Record | Entered detail |
|---|---|
| dec1 | Decision question: Which format should be tested first? Alternatives considered: Internal offline pack; hosted platform; retain current method. Chosen option / current hypothesis: Test the internal pack first Why this option: It meets the initial no-account need in the fictional rehearsal; no purchase decision follows from this. Supporting / contradicting sources: src1, src2 Decision confidence: low Decision date: 2026-10-18 Next review date: 2026-10-30 Record state: draft Decision owner role: Program coordinator |
Saved version history
| Version | Label | Saved UTC |
|---|