Preserve Enough Source Detail To Reproduce A Search Instead Of Saving An Isolated Fact
When a public record answers a question, save where it came from at the same time you save the fact. The agency or court, jurisdiction, record type, relevant date, and record identifier form the backbone of a reproducible citation.
Use the terminology supplied by the source. If a recorder calls an identifier an instrument number, preserve that label; if a court uses a docket or case number, record it accordingly.
A practical citation should let another careful searcher return to the same item. Depending on the system, that may require a case number, instrument number, book-and-page reference, parcel ID, entity number, certificate number, or archive reference.
For online systems, note the agency and search path rather than relying only on a temporary results URL. A durable identifier combined with the maintaining office is usually more useful than a session-specific address.
A citation should distinguish source content from your interpretation. Summarize the relevant field accurately, then place any inference, identity connection, or unresolved question in a separate note.
If a candidate later proves incorrect, preserve enough citation detail to explain why the record was rejected. A research log should prevent the same false lead from being rediscovered and accepted later.
It is stronger when paired with the agency, record type, date, and identifier needed to find the source again.
Yes when useful, but also save the agency and durable locator because search-session URLs can expire.
Save the office, category, names, dates, jurisdiction, and available index information.
Keep source description and interpretation separate so readers can see what the record itself establishes.
They document false leads and can prevent the same mistaken identity from being repeated.
