Brofessor watch-along

Ruling definitions

Everything you're ruling on, and how the pieces fit.

The frame rule — you rule on how the SCRIPT PRESENTS its sourcing, never where the creator "really" got it. The narration's words and the screen decide everything.

The 4 attribution codes (what your ruling sets)

diegetic/shown: The claim's own evidentiary artifact is on screen at the claim's moment — a document, screenshot, post, photo, record, or genuine footage. Shown beats named.
diegetic/implied: Stock footage, B-roll, reenactment, or a creator-made map/infographic is on screen; sourcing is only implied. The default for stock.
named_in_text: The narration names the source in words ("according to Wired…"), even over B-roll.
implied: Bare narration, no source given. Verifying means leaving the video. The normal register of the form — not a criticism.

The two hidden axes → how codes are derived

Analysts never emit a code — they record two observations, and the code is derived:

visual_role: What is ON SCREEN at the claim's moment: evidence_shown · illustrative · host (narrator on camera) · none (black frame, bare title card, dead transition, abstract filler — rare, ~5% of real votes) · unknown (frames don't cover it).; ⚠ host / none / unknown all derive the SAME code — that three-way split never changes a ruling. The only distinction that matters is evidence_shown vs illustrative vs the rest.
verbal_named: Does the narration name the source at (or right before) the claim? true / false.

visual_role	verbal_named	→ code
evidence_shown	either	diegetic/shown
illustrative	either	diegetic/implied
host / none / unknown	true	named_in_text
host / none / unknown	false	implied

Origin — where a claim stands

presented_source: The script ties the claim to an enumerated source (it has source links).
unnamed_external: Outside information with nobody to ask: "experts say", "reports suggest". No source link.
creator_inference: The creator's own reasoning connecting material they presented. Pure inference isn't a sourced claim at all — it only counts when it smuggles in an outside specific.

Kind — what type of fact (8 kinds)

statistic: A number offered as fact: counts, sums, percentages, rankings, measurements.
date: A specific date, year, or dated event.
named_person: A real person named as actor, source, or authority.
document: A document, report, filing, database, archive, or published work the claim depends on (official records live here too).
quoted_material: Words attributed to somebody: an email, post, statement, testimony, interview.
legal: A law, case, charge, ruling, sentence, or official proceeding.
technical: A named product, version, system, standard, or technical specific.
other: Externally sourced but none of the above.

Sources vs artifacts (and their types)

Source = who/what ASSERTS. Sandra is a source; the FBI is a source; u/coldcase99 is a source.
Types: person · org · account · outlet · other

Artifact = the concrete THING shown or cited. The FBI's press release is an artifact, published_by the FBI. A security-cam clip is an artifact.
Types: document · footage · record · post · image · other

Link types between them: asserted_by · published_by · contained_in · depicts

Claim counts NEVER map to artifact counts — one rich source can carry 20 claims.

Creator-made media — the fixed rules

Quote card (quote as styled text): Typography is not evidence → counts as naming in words → named_in_text.
Creator-made map / chart / infographic / logo card: Illustrative → diegetic/implied.
Teaching demo / walkthrough: Usually NOT a claim — only counts when it relays a hard outside fact.
Text overlay ON a real shown artifact: Still diegetic/shown.

What counts as a claim (and what doesn't)

Counts: anything someone had to look up, read, or go somewhere for — dates, figures, named people/orgs/works, documents, quotes, laws, technical specifics.

Doesn't count: the script's own framing ("which raises a question…"), common knowledge with no specific, the creator's opinions/experience, repetition of an already-recorded fact.

Question types you'll meet

pattern: One ruling that resolves a family of similar moments ("resolves N siblings"). The sibling moments are listed on the card.
merge: "Are X and Y the same source/artifact?" — from analysts naming the same thing differently.
reality check: Few analysts found this entity — is it real or a mis-read?
source count: The final question: how many distinct sources does the video have, after your merges.

"Seat-vote split" = how the 19 independent analysts voted. The SUGGESTED tag is the machine's guess — overrule it freely; your ruling is the ground truth.