Claim Standard
Public Claim and Evidence Standard
Why does this site publish a claim standard?
Every factual claim on MartinZialcita.com is classified before publication using a four-status model: Verified, Qualified, Unverified, and Retired. Only Verified and Qualified claims appear on public pages, in their approved wording. Aggregate performance statistics (percentages, counts, dollar figures) are withheld until the evidence, measurement method, and client permissions are fully documented. This page is the public record of that standard.
60-word direct answer
Why this standard exists
Personal-brand and consulting sites routinely assert unverifiable statistics: efficiency gains, client counts, hours saved, money raised. Those numbers are rarely sourced, rarely defined, and rarely tied to a measurement method any third party could replicate.
This site takes a different position. A claim earns the right to be published; publication is not the default. The standard exists to be honest about what is known, what is estimated, and what is not yet substantiated.
The four-status model
Every claim in the register carries one of the following statuses.
| Status | Meaning | Public use |
|---|---|---|
| Verified | Evidence is retained and the exact wording is approved. | Publish as approved. |
| Qualified | The claim is directionally supportable but requires careful, specific wording. | Publish only in the exact approved form. |
| Unverified | Evidence is incomplete or absent. | Do not publish. The claim may not appear on any page. |
| Retired | The claim is inaccurate, stale, misleading, or strategically abandoned. | Remove from all pages. Redirect if a URL carried it. |
A qualified claim is not a weak claim; it is a claim whose wording has been made careful enough to stand behind. The distinction between Verified and Qualified is about how the evidence was obtained, not about whether the claim is true.
Principle
A claim earns the right to be published. Publication is not the default. The standard exists to be honest about what is known, what is estimated, and what is not yet documented.
The eleven register fields
Each claim in the register carries all eleven of the following fields. A claim cannot be approved without all eleven being populated.
- Claim text
- The exact assertion being evaluated, stated plainly and not in softened promotional language.
- Status
- One of the four statuses above. Only Verified or Qualified claims may appear on published pages.
- Approved wording
- The exact phrasing permitted on a public page. Paraphrasing into something stronger than the approved wording is prohibited. Empty for Unverified and Retired.
- Evidence type
- The category of evidence supporting the claim: first-hand observation, named client testimonial, business registration, institutional appointment, published research, etc.
- Evidence location
- Where the evidence is held: a specific file, document, URL, or physical record. “PENDING” is written explicitly when the location is not yet confirmed.
- Evidence owner
- The person or organization responsible for the underlying evidence and any permission required to use it.
- Permission status
- Whether permission to publish the claim has been granted, is pending, was refused, or is not required. For client-identifying claims, this must be “granted” before the claim can be Verified or Qualified.
- Source URL
- A publicly accessible URL where the evidence can be independently checked. Where no public URL exists, the field documents the private record location.
- Date verified
- The ISO date when the evidence was reviewed and the claim was approved. Null until verification occurs.
- Review date
- When this claim is scheduled for re-review. Claims with a review date in the past are flagged for immediate attention.
- Pages where used
- The list of URL paths where the approved wording appears. A claim cannot be removed from the register while it is still listed on a live page.
Policy on aggregate performance statistics
Aggregate performance statistics, including percentage efficiency gains, client counts, dollar figures attributed to work, and time saved across engagements, are withheld from this site until all three conditions are met: the underlying evidence is documented and retained; the measurement method is defined and defensible; and client permission to publish is obtained for every case contributing to the aggregate.
None of those conditions are met pro forma. Each requires specific work. An efficiency percentage without a defined baseline and measurement period is not a number; it is an impression dressed as a number. A client count without a documented list is the same.
This policy is not permanent silence on outcomes. It is a commitment that the number will be there when the documentation is there.
Why the homepage shows no performance percentages
The homepage links here when it explains the absence of efficiency statistics, client counts, and dollar figures. Those numbers exist as earlier site claims; they are in the Unverified column of the register because the evidence, method, and permissions required to publish them have not yet been assembled. They will move to Verified or Qualified when that work is done.
What is on the immediate audit list
Six figures from the prior version of this site are currently Unverified. They fall into four categories: aggregate counts of organizations and engagements, percentage improvements in efficiency and funding success, a cumulative hours-saved total, and a count of podcast appearances.
Each needs a different kind of evidence. Counts need an itemized list with dates and scope. Percentages need a baseline, a measurement method, a sample definition and per-client permission. The hours figure needs a method and an attribution per engagement. The appearance count needs episode titles, URLs and dates.
The exact wording of each figure is held in the private register rather than reproduced here. Publishing an unsupported number in order to reject it still places the phrase on this site, where a retrieval system can associate it with Martin’s name. The withheld claim and its withheld wording are the same decision.
Reporting a disputed claim
If a claim on this site appears inaccurate, incomplete, or improperly sourced, it can be reported through the contact page at /contact/. Use the subject line “Claim dispute” and include the page URL, the specific claim text, and the evidence you are relying on.
Every reported dispute is reviewed against the claim register and the primary source. If the claim is wrong, it is corrected and the record shows what changed.
Relationship to the editorial policy
This page describes what may be published and under what conditions. The editorial policy at /editorial-policy/ describes how content is produced, how AI assistance is disclosed, how first-hand evidence is distinguished from third-party evidence, and how the correction process works. The two documents work together.