Frequently Asked Questions

In today's information landscape, having the microphone is often more important than having the right answer. Ideas rise not because they are well-supported, but because they are repeated, amplified, or promoted by those with reach. Research has shown that popularity and visibility are only weakly correlated with quality, meaning that high-quality ideas can be drowned out while weaker ones spread widely. The Evidence Ledger is designed to reverse that dynamic. It creates a structured, transparent environment where claims are evaluated on evidence, reasoning, and expert critique—not on who said them. In doing so, it helps ensure that the best ideas can surface, regardless of their origin.

There is an abundance of new ideas, or "concepts" in the world, but we lack the institutional ability to filter these concepts effectively. Effective filtering would not only ensure that the best concepts received the most attention and investment, it would also document why less promising concepts failed to gain traction. This would help future innovators avoid repeating past mistakes.

Existing mechanisms for sorting ideas fall short for a variety of reasons. Some, such as most grant applications, are inefficient at converting people's time into broad societal value. Others, such as venture capital vetting processes, fail to be sufficiently open and honest when it comes to documenting its findings, such as whether an idea is promising, flawed, or merely ahead of its time.

The Evidence Ledger provides a framework for entrepreneurs and innovators to clearly state and defend the claims that they would like to make in support of their ideas or business propositions. It then invites subject matter experts (SMEs) from many fields to review those claims, and state for the record whether they support or challenge a claim, and why they feel qualified to review the claim.

An idea is a powerful thing. A great idea can accelerate humanity's progress. A bad idea can waste time and resources. By improving the speed and transparency with which ideas are vetted, we can optimize the rate at which civilization grows and maximize the value of the people who contribute to its growth.

A strong concept is defined by a description that both clearly explains the idea and distinguishes it from other similar ideas or variants of the idea. The description should be self-contained, allowing a reader to understand exactly what the concept is—and what makes it different—without needing to consult external sources. A good concept description does not include any claims and does not attempt to argue its merit or value.

As of when this answer was written, AI's are great at crafting well-written answers, but they are still not trusted to produce correct answers, especially when it comes to questions related to novel ideas. The Evidence Ledger seeks to capture the opinions of true subject matter experts, not the synthetic "opinions" of large language models.

If a subject matter expert wants to use an AI to help propose a grammatically cleaner way to express a thought, or as a search engine to assist with literature searches, this is encouraged. However, the use of an AI as a source of inspiration is discouraged. We also would prefer that users not cut and paste any "raw thoughts" generated by an AI into a claim or the review of the evidence ledger, as these are likely to be incorrect as much as they are correct.

Please make sure that everything that you add to the evidence ledger is: a) Something that you thought of and wished to express, b) That it falls within your own areas of expertise, and c) That you are reasonably confident, as a human expert, is correct.

Focus primarily on the wording of the claim when selecting "Support" versus "Challenge". You should select "Support" if you believe that the claim sentence is defended by the material in the evidence section. If you have suggestions for improvement or want to suggest alternative defenses, include them in your review comments, but still select "Support". If you believe the claim was overly conservative, you should still select "Support" and then state your point of view in the review text. If the evidence does not support the claim, or you are not convinced of the claim's validity, select "Challenge" and explain your reasoning.

You can also challenge the claim sentence for not being compliant with the rules of the site – see "What is required for a claim to comply with the rules of the site?"

A Claim Sentence must make a single claim. For example, "Bumble bees have yellow fur and can fly at speeds of up to 10 m/s" does not comply because it is making two distinct claims. "Bumble bees can fly at speeds of up to 10 m/s and at altitudes of 5 km" is also invalid because it makes two claims. However, "Bumble bees can fly at speeds of up to 10 m/s at altitudes of 5 km" is a single claim because the phrase "at altitudes of 5 km" is a descriptive term that qualifies the "up to 10 m/s" term.

A claim must be written so that it can only be interpreted in one way. "Bumble bees can fly at speeds of 10-50 m/s at altitudes of 0-5 km" does not comply because different people are likely to interpret this claim in different ways.

Claims must be falsifiable. "Five million years ago, bumble bees used to play tic-tac-toe in the forest" is a claim that would be unreasonably difficult to prove right or wrong.

The claim sentence must comply with the site's guidelines on its own, without relying on clarifications captured in the evidence section.