Editorial standards
Evidence, moderation, correction, conflict-of-interest, and publishing rules for Clerisi sessions, articles, resources, and archive records.
1. The editorial standard
Clerisi exists to test ideas, claims, and arguments in public without reducing them to spectacle. Every session should make the tested idea clearer, the evidence trail more visible, and the limits of the discussion easier to understand.
Editorial principle: Clerisi does not publish a claim as settled simply because it was persuasive on stage. Live persuasion, evidence strength, and editorial judgment are separate layers.
2. Evidence and claim handling
Claims should be framed precisely enough to be examined. Clerisi distinguishes between factual claims, interpretive claims, moral claims, strategic claims, and predictions.
- Evidence should be attributed, relevant, and proportionate to the claim.
- Counter-evidence should be represented fairly, especially in Idea Court sessions.
- Unresolved evidence gaps should be named rather than hidden.
- Archive pages should preserve what was argued, what was evidenced, and what remains open.
3. Moderation rules
Moderation is not passive hosting. Moderators protect structure, challenge vagueness, clarify the object under examination, keep time, separate evidence from rhetoric, and prevent sessions from collapsing into personal performance.
Allowed tension
Strong disagreement, difficult questions, and visible challenge are part of Clerisi format logic.
Disallowed distortion
Bad-faith misrepresentation, personal attacks, and evidence laundering undermine the public record.
4. Conflicts of interest
Speakers, moderators, contributors, sponsors, and editorial participants should disclose material relationships that may affect interpretation of a session, claim, or resource.
5. Corrections and updates
Correction is part of the knowledge process. When a claim summary, transcript, assessment label, resource, or article contains a material error, the correction should be visible, dated, and attached to the relevant record.
- Minor typographical corrections may be corrected silently.
- Substantive factual corrections should be noted on the page.
- Assessment or claim-status updates should preserve the earlier state where relevant.
- Archive entries should show when new evidence changes interpretation.
6. AI-assisted editorial work
Where configured, AI may assist with transcription cleanup, summarisation, topic extraction, metadata preparation, and draft structuring. Human review is required before any AI-assisted material is published as a Clerisi output.
7. Review cadence
This standards page should be reviewed whenever Clerisi introduces new formats, participation tools, evidence-review practices, commercial arrangements, or media-processing capabilities.