Institutional Classification and Evidence Standards

Independent classification axes

A. Policy transparency

Code	Status	Evidence requirement
PT1	Public written policy verified	Working, dated primary source or adequately preserved institutional copy
PT2	Internal written policy confirmed	Authorized institutional confirmation; policy not publicly provided
PT3	Informal editorial practice confirmed	Attributable institutional statement, no written policy confirmed
PT4	No policy confirmed	Authorized explicit statement that no relevant policy exists
PT5	No public policy located	Completion of documented searches, no conclusion about internal existence
PT6	Unverified or insufficient evidence	Too little evidence to make another classification

B. Position on each separate remedy

Use expressly permitted, case-by-case review, expressly prohibited, or not established. Apply to correction, update, editor’s note, anonymization, search-engine de-indexing, and removal independently. A newsroom may permit corrections and categorically prohibit de-indexing without contradiction.

C. Decision process

Record documented decision-maker, student editorial authority where relevant, adviser role, submission procedure, stated criteria, acknowledgment timing, reconsideration path, and whether actual policy history is published. Do not infer decision authority solely from titles or email participation.

D. Provenance and historical certainty

Record the policy’s stated effective date, first observed online date, last verified date, and any independently documented approval or adoption evidence as separate fields. “First located in 2026” is not equivalent to “adopted in 2026.”

Sample institution record

institution_id: aep-example-001
publication: Example Student News
parent_institution: Example University
publication_type: student_media
active_status: verified_active
policy_transparency: PT1
policy_url: https://example.org/editorial-policy
policy_effective_date: unknown
policy_first_observed_date: 2026-10-11
policy_verified_date: 2026-10-11
remedies:
  correction: expressly_permitted
  contextual_update: case_by_case
  deindexing: not_established
  anonymization: not_established
  removal: expressly_prohibited
editorial_decision_authority: student_editor_in_chief
outreach_status: not_contacted
source_archive_reference: null
review_status: preliminary
reviewer_count: 1
public_notes: "Illustrative fictional record only."

Evidence hierarchy and quality control

1. Contemporaneous primary policy statements and identifiable official institutional documents.
2. Authorized, attributable responses from an institution.
3. Credible reporting and historical archival materials, each labeled by type and date.
4. Technical observations and automated discovery leads requiring interpretation and, where material, human review.

For public classifications, require primary or otherwise clearly sufficient evidence and a review timestamp. For contested interpretations, request an independent second review. Record corrections openly and preserve historical versions of profiles, subject to privacy and legal constraints.

Crucial non-inferences

• No public policy located ≠ No policy exists.
• No response ≠ Opposed to de-indexing.
• An editorial change ≠ Proof of a policy violation.
• A current policy ≠ Proof of the policy in force years earlier.
• University governance ≠ Automatic editorial control of its student paper.
• Later dismissal, acquittal, vacatur, or expungement ≠ Interchangeable legal outcomes.
• De-indexed ≠ Deleted or inaccessible to direct readers.

Cite this document

The Archive Ethics Project. (2026). Institutional Classification and Evidence Standards (Version 1.0; proposed; part of the founding project specification). https://archiveethics.org/methodology/classification-standards Include the date you accessed it; this page may be revised, and earlier versions are preserved.

↑ Back to top