Title Evidence Status and Pathological Uncertainty: A Working Standard for War Contamination Information
Author(s) Laboratory of Information Systems
Affiliation New Euro Vision: exhibitions, marketing, research s.r.o.
Country Czech Republic
Contribution type conceptual paper; methodological paper
Thematic area • Theory, Methodology, and Evidence
Conference framework connection • Analytical Track AT-01 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-02 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-03 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-04 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-05 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-06 — provisional title to be defined• Analytical Track AT-07 — provisional title to be defined
Abstract Research on war-related environmental contamination does not face a simple shortage of information. It operates within heterogeneous information environments in which measurements, eyewitness accounts, official statements, archival documents, reconstructions, analytical inferences, and model predictions are routinely mixed. After inclusion in a report or database, these materials may acquire the same visual form and be treated as equivalent facts.
This contribution defines this condition as pathological uncertainty. Ordinary scientific uncertainty may concern measurement error, sampling limitations, or model performance. Pathological uncertainty occurs when different sources and types of uncertainty accumulate inside an information system and their origins become obscured. Additional documents may then increase the volume of available information without improving knowledge.
Wartime information requires particular caution. All parties produce strategically interested accounts, although their purposes and methods may differ. Losses may be exaggerated or concealed, categories may change, incomplete records may be presented as comprehensive, and repeated claims may create an illusion of independent confirmation. The later archival status of a document does not make its contents true. Archival preservation confirms that a statement existed; it does not verify the reality described by that statement. Current misinformation can therefore become tomorrow’s documented fact unless its provenance and status remain visible.
The proposed system distinguishes six evidence statuses: Observed, Documented, Reconstructed, Inferred, Predicted, and Verified. Observed information derives from direct observation or measurement. Documented information establishes that a record or statement exists. Reconstructed information combines incomplete traces into a proposed account. Inferred information identifies an analytical relationship not directly observed. Predicted information describes an expected state or consequence. Verified information has been examined through an independent evidential procedure. These categories do not form an automatic ladder toward truth, and verification must specify what was tested and by which method.
Every record must retain its source, date, location, method, transformation history, uncertainty, and dependencies on other records. Repeated citations of one original claim must not be counted as independent evidence. Contradictions and missing data remain registered rather than silently harmonized.
For this research field, a small, carefully governed database can be scientifically more valuable than a large corpus of poorly classified records. The purpose is not to eliminate uncertainty but to make it visible, attributable, and reducible through targeted investigation.
Key points • War-contamination research operates within structurally heterogeneous and frequently distorted information environments.
• A document confirms the existence of a statement but does not automatically verify the event or condition described.
• Observed, Documented, Reconstructed, Inferred, Predicted, and Verified information must remain explicitly differentiated.
• Provenance, transformations, citation dependencies, contradictions, and missing data must remain visible.
• A limited, high-quality evidence base may provide greater scientific value than a large but epistemically uncontrolled collection.
Keywords evidence status; pathological uncertainty; war-related environmental contamination; information integrity; provenance; archival evidence; wartime information; verification; database methodology; expert–AI system
Main discussion question How can heterogeneous and politically distorted information be preserved and analysed without allowing documentation, repetition, reconstruction, or prediction to become mistaken for verified fact?
OJS publication link https://pollution-diseases-ojs.org/index.php/pd/article/view/78
Note. Analytical TracksIn addition to the main thematic areas, the conference programme will include several cross-cutting analytical tracks. These tracks will be defined during the preparation of the programme, based on the submitted abstracts and the emerging links between presentations.At the preliminary stage, abstracts may be assigned to provisional analytical tracks marked as AT-01 to AT-07. Final track titles will be announced after the Scientific Committee has reviewed the submitted materials.