Publishedpublished

How should small teams evaluate whether to use Convex, Supabase, or Cloudflare for realtime products?

This turns the project’s backend research into a public dossier format.

▲ 0 votes12 evidence itemsdeveloper/startup stack

Loading follow state…

Investigation brief

What this question needs before publication

Current state: this topic is published. A public dossier only appears when the evidence is reviewable, claims are mapped to sources, and a human editor signs off on the final framing.

Published dossier available with claim-level sources.

Trust showcase

Signals we will preserve

pricing cards
revisit triggers
assumption log

What makes this publishable

Publishability checklist

1. Source floor

At least three independently reviewable sources before the question becomes a public claim set.

2. Claim mapping

Claims mapped to source IDs before publication, with caveats separated from supported findings.

3. Human review

Human editor review before a dossier goes public. AI output is never evidence.

When to revisit this question

What changes next

New source appears

Return when a new independently reviewable source appears and can change the source floor.

Status changes

Return when the status changes from proposed to researching, approved, or published.

Challenge gets stronger

Return when a claim can be challenged with better evidence, missing context, or a stronger counter-source.

What can change this status

Evidence changes before status changes

Independent sources

Independent sources can move a proposed question toward approved or researching when they make the question investigable.

Contradictory evidence

Contradictory evidence can keep a claim uncertain instead of publishable until editors separate supported findings from caveats.

Corrections and challenges

Corrections and challenges can reopen human review after publication when they change source confidence or claim wording.

Status changes still require human editorial review. This glossary does not move topics, publish dossiers, or run provider calls.

Evidence Docket

Public evidence and moderated intake

No accepted public evidence is available yet.

No AI extraction, search, crawling, or provider calls run from this formHuman review before public use0 public0 under review

How this evidence intake area worksPublic submitter workflow

1. Prepare evidence quality with the checklist before typing into the form.
2. Check readiness and submit only after sign-in, account setup, and topic state allow moderation intake.
3. Track owner-scoped status after submitted evidence appears in the signed-in status tracker.
4. Respond if editors ask for clarification from the signed-in clarification response surface.
5. Read the public docket to inspect accepted evidence without private moderation details.

This guide helps you prepare evidence; it does not publish or score anything automatically.

Evidence intake hierarchyScan order

Primary action: prepare and queue evidence

Start with the checklist, readiness guidance, and evidence fields.

Owner-only follow-up appears after sign-in

Status tracking and clarification responses stay scoped to the signed-in submitter.

Public docket stays separate from moderation

Only accepted public evidence appears here; raw submissions and editor notes stay private.

This layout explains the review path; editors still decide what can be used.

Start here: share evidence editors can verifyContributor onboarding

Use this flow when you have a source, correction, or firsthand context that could help editors improve a topic.

Prepare a source: bring the original link, why it matters, and your relationship to it.
Sign in and queue: create or enter your account, finish setup, and send the evidence to moderation.
Editors review: humans decide whether the submission can support a claim, correction, or dossier update.
Follow up if asked: signed-in submitters can respond when editors need clarification.

This guide does not publish, score, or moderate submissions automatically.

Step 1 · Prepare evidencePreparation

Before you sign inCompact signed-out summary

What you can do now: review the quality checklist and prepare a source URL, relevance context, and relationship disclosure.

What requires sign-in: queue evidence for human moderation and see owner-scoped status or clarification follow-up.

This summary is informational. Submissions go to human editors before they can affect public pages.

Evidence quality checklistStatic guidance only

Strong evidence usually includes:

Primary source or original document
Clear relevance to this topic
Relationship or conflict disclosure
Enough context for an editor to verify

Likely to be rejected:

Vague claims
Unverifiable screenshots
Duplicate links without new context
Promotional submissions without disclosure

This checklist does not score, accept, reject, or publish anything automatically.

Submission readinessSubmission state: Sign-in required

Submitter next step: Prepare a source URL, relevance context, and relationship disclosure before signing in.

This readiness guidance is informational; editors still review submissions before use.

Field helper summaryInput guidance only

Title: name the concrete source or evidence packet.
URL: use the primary source link editors should inspect.
Why it matters: connect the source to this topic's question, claim, or context.
Relationship: disclose whether you are a reader, author, vendor, interested party, or anonymous tipster.

These field tips help you prepare a clearer submission; editors still review every item before use.

Completion summaryRequired fields: 0/4

Title: incomplete
Evidence URL: incomplete
Why it matters: incomplete
Source relationship: incomplete

Add all required fields before the queue button can enable.

This summary only helps you review your answers before sending them to editors.

Pre-submit confidenceConfidence state: Not ready

Submitter action: resolve sign-in, profile, topic, field, or length blockers before queueing.

Manual review expectation: editors still review every queued row before it can affect evidence or dossiers.

This confidence guide helps you decide how much context to include; editors still make the review decision.

Field length guidanceLength status: Within limits

Title 0/140
Evidence URL 0/500
Why it matters 0/1000
Source relationship 0/160

All field lengths are within the current local limits.

Length guidance only; editors still review the submitted context before it can be used.

Step 2 · Fill required fieldsRequired inputs · Fields and previews

Scan tip: finish the source link first, then add the editor context that explains why it matters.

Source identitySource identity fields · Title · URL · duplicate guidance when relevant

Title and URL stay paired before duplicate context.

Evidence titleEvidence URL

Source URL normalization previewNormalized URL preview: Waiting for URL

Type a source URL to preview the duplicate-matching shape.

This preview helps you spot duplicate-looking links; editors still review context manually.

Editorial contextEditorial context fields · Relevance · relationship disclosure

Relevance and disclosure stay paired before relationship preview.

Why this source mattersSource relationship

Relationship disclosure previewEditor-facing disclosure preview: Waiting for disclosure

Choose how you relate to the source so editors can review context before any decision.

This preview helps you explain your relationship to the evidence before editors review it.

Field grouping only helps you organize context before editorial review.

Step 3 · Review and follow upManual editor path · Review and follow-up

Editor review pathAfter queueing: manual editor review

Queued for moderation: the evidence row waits for human review.
Editor checks source, relevance, duplicate context, and relationship disclosure: no automated scoring decides the outcome.
Possible clarification request: editors may ask the original submitter for more context.
Accepted or rejected with submitter-visible outcome: final moderation stays manual.

This summary explains the human review path before you submit.

Ownership and follow-upSubmitter-scoped follow-up

Status and clarification follow-up are scoped to the signed-in submitter.
Public readers do not receive admin controls or private submitter details from this form.
Editors review the disclosure context manually before any accepted or rejected outcome.

This summary explains who can see submission status after sign-in.

Post-submit expectationsAfter a successful queue attempt

The form clears and a success message confirms the row is waiting for human moderation.
Your signed-in status tracker can show owner-scoped follow-up after profile and topic readiness.
Clarification requests, accepted outcomes, and rejected outcomes stay manual editor decisions.

This guidance explains what happens after you send evidence to editors.

Clarification expectationsIf editors need more context

They may request clarification from the original signed-in submitter.
Respond from the owner-scoped clarification surface after sign-in.
Evidence still needs editor resolution before acceptance or rejection.

This guidance explains how editors may ask for more context.

Duplicate-context expectationsWhen a link looks familiar

A duplicate-looking link can still help if it adds new context, stronger disclosure, or a materially different source package.

This guidance explains how duplicate-looking links are reviewed.

Source-quality self-checkManual triage only

Primary or original: source material, filings, datasets, transcripts, or first-party statements.
Corroborating: reputable coverage or analysis that helps verify or contextualize the claim.
Weak or context-only: summaries, screenshots, promotional pages, or opinion without clear verification hooks.

Editors still make source-quality judgments manually before any accepted or rejected outcome.

This guidance helps you describe why the source is useful for editors.

Outcome expectationsAccepted or rejected

Accepted means editors found the evidence useful enough to attach to the topic or dossier workflow.
Rejected means editors resolved the row without using it.
Signed-in submitters may see accepted or rejected outcomes in their owner-scoped status tracker.

This guidance explains possible human review outcomes.

Final package reviewBefore queueing

Re-read source quality: primary/original, corroborating, or weak/context-only.
Re-read relevance: why this evidence matters for the topic.
Re-read relationship disclosure so editors understand your source relationship.
Re-read duplicate context and explain what is new if the link looks familiar.
Re-read expected follow-up: owner-scoped status, possible clarification, and manual accepted/rejected outcomes.

This guidance helps you package evidence clearly for editors.

Manual source credibility checksEditor review only

Editors check source identity: who produced or controls the material.
Editors check provenance: where the material came from and whether it can be traced.
Editors check corroboration against other evidence or context when available.
Editors check conflict or disclosure context before relying on the submission.
Editors check topic relevance before using the evidence in the workflow.

This guidance helps you explain credibility; editors still verify before use.

Review your evidence package before sending it to moderation.

Title 0/140 · URL 0/500 · why 0/1000 · relationship 0/160

This form only sends your submission to the editorial queue.

Accepted public evidence

Published work uses challenge and correction paths; new source intake stays separate from this public docket.

No accepted public evidence rows yet.