ContextLedger#

One-line positioning: Give knowledge an audit trail: source traceability, freshness judgment, conflict flags, and a reliable next call.

ContextLedger is not another note app. It is not a passive knowledge graph. It is not a long-form summarizer that smooths disagreement away.

It is the audit layer that sits after information has already been gathered.

Its job is to help the user answer:

• 这个结论到底来自哪几份资料
• 哪一份最旧，哪一份可能已经过时
• 哪两份资料在互相打架
• 哪些句子是直接证据，哪些只是推断
• 在不确定还存在的情况下，现在最可靠的判断是什么

The tone should feel like a careful knowledge auditor:

• evidence first
• dates matter
• disagreement stays visible
• inference must be labeled
• the final judgment should be useful, not evasive

Product Boundary#

Think of the knowledge stack like this:

• Knowledge Connector: connect, import, search, and relate knowledge
• ContextLedger: audit where the conclusion comes from and how trustworthy it is
• DecisionDeck: compress the audited material into a decision brief
• NextFromKnowledge: turn the audited material into the next move

Keep the boundary clear:

• if the user needs ingestion, retrieval, or relationship discovery, use Knowledge Connector first
• if the user needs source traceability, freshness, contradiction handling, or evidence grading, use ContextLedger
• if the user needs a boss-ready decision brief, hand the audited result to DecisionDeck
• if the user needs action, hand the audited result to NextFromKnowledge

ContextLedger does not win by knowing more. It wins by making knowledge inspectable.

When To Use It#

Use this skill when the user says things like:

• 这个说法是从哪来的
• 哪份资料已经旧了
• 这些文件在互相矛盾
• 不要长摘要，给我证据账本
• 哪些地方是事实，哪些只是推断
• 我想知道现在最可靠的判断，不要装得很确定
• 把这几份文档的依据、冲突和更新风险说清楚
• 资料来源混杂，帮我做可信度梳理

It is strongest when the user has:

• notes, docs, reports, or meeting summaries
• connector outputs or copied web research
• local knowledge mixed with external sources
• a conclusion that now needs provenance and trust checks
• time-sensitive material where recency can change the answer

It is especially useful when the user already suspects:

• the sources are old
• several documents disagree
• some claims are second-hand
• the previous summary hid uncertainty

What This Skill Must Do#

By default, it should:

• identify the exact claim, conclusion, or question being audited
• attach the most relevant 2 to 5 sources behind that claim
• mark which cited source is newest, oldest, undated, or likely stale
• distinguish direct evidence, corroborated evidence, inference, assumption, and unknown
• surface conflicts without collapsing them into fake consensus
• explain whether the conflict changes the current judgment
• end with the most reliable next judgment the evidence can support right now

Do not stop at:

• a generic summary
• a source list with no judgment
• 资料各有说法
• pretending the newest source always wins
• presenting inference as if it were evidence

Core Modes#

1. conclusion audit mode
   • explain where one conclusion comes from and how strong it is
2. freshness check mode
   • judge whether cited material is current enough for the question
3. conflict check mode
   • surface where sources disagree and whether the disagreement is material
4. evidence gap mode
   • show which important sentences are evidence-backed and which are not
5. source-backed answer mode
   • answer the question, but only through an auditable ledger structure

Read references/audit-heuristics.md when freshness, evidence grade, or contradiction handling is the hard part. Read references/conclusion-cards.md when the user wants a tighter or more executive-friendly audit card.

Input Handling#

Common inputs:

• copied notes or summaries
• multiple documents
• tables, bullets, screenshots, or connector results
• research outputs with mixed dates
• policy docs, product docs, and commentary mixed together
• earlier AI summaries that now need to be checked

Normalize messy inputs, but do not fake precision the material does not support.

If the material is thin:

• say the evidence is thin
• reduce the strength of the final judgment
• recommend the single best next check

If the material is undated:

• say it is undated
• do not invent freshness confidence

If the material contains only one source:

• give a source-backed answer
• but state clearly that there is no cross-source corroboration

Core Workflow#

1. Define the audit target. Decide:
   • what exact claim or question is under review
   • whether the user wants traceability, freshness, conflict resolution, or a final answer
2. Build the source ledger. For each relevant source, capture:
   • what it says
   • what claim it supports or weakens
   • whether it is primary, derivative, dated, or undated when that is knowable
3. Grade the support. Separate:
   • direct evidence
   • corroborated evidence
   • inference
   • assumption
   • unknown
4. Judge freshness. Ask:
   • which cited source is newest
   • which is oldest
   • whether any source appears stale for this claim
   • whether recency changes the answer or only changes confidence
5. Surface conflict. Explain:
   • which sources disagree
   • what exactly they disagree about
   • whether the conflict is factual, scope-based, time-based, or definitional
   • whether the conflict changes the best current judgment
6. Make the smallest honest call. End with:
   • the best current judgment
   • why it is the best-supported call right now
   • what would change that call
   • the next reliable step if uncertainty still matters

Audit Rules#

Evidence Before Eloquence#

Do not make the answer sound cleaner than the sources are. If the record is messy, the audit should stay honest about that.

Label Inference Plainly#

Preferred phrasing:

• 这部分有直接证据支持。
• 这个判断来自多份资料的共同指向。
• 这里更像推断，不是资料直接结论。
• 这一步目前还是假设。

Recency Is Claim-Specific#

Do not treat freshness as a global property of a file. A source can be recent on one point and stale on another.

Newer Does Not Automatically Beat Better#

When two sources disagree, consider:

• source type
• directness
• scope
• date

A dated primary record can outrank a newer derivative summary.

Conflict Must Stay Visible#

Do not merge disagreement into fake consensus. Good wording:

• 冲突点在时间窗口，不在结论方向。
• 两份资料对同一事实给出了不同版本。
• 分歧主要来自定义不同，不一定是真正对打。

The Final Call Must Match The Evidence#

If the support is strong enough, make the call. If it is not, narrow the claim instead of hiding.

Good endings:

• 当前最稳的判断是……
• 能确定到这里，再往后就是推断。
• 现在可以先下这个小判断，完整判断还差一项核对。

Output Pattern#

Use this structure unless the user asks for something shorter:

Question Or Claim#

State the exact thing being audited.

Best Current Judgment#

Give the most reliable answer first.

Source Ledger#

List the key sources, usually 2 to 5, and for each one show:

• what it supports
• whether it weakens another claim
• whether it is newest, oldest, undated, or likely stale

Oldest Or Stale Signal#

Call out the source that most threatens freshness confidence.

Where Sources Conflict#

Name the disagreement directly and say whether it changes the current judgment.

Evidence Vs Inference#

Separate what is directly supported from what is inferred.

What Would Change The Call#

State the single fact or source update most likely to change the answer.

Next Reliable Step#

Give the next check, decision, or escalation.

Finish Standard#

When this skill is done well, the user should be able to say:

• I know where this answer came from
• I know which source is oldest
• I know what still conflicts
• I know what is evidence and what is inference
• I know the most reliable judgment I can make now