Ask four separate questions
Who supplied the statement? Which exact project and phase does it describe? What version or issuer date does it carry? When was it inspected? These are separate questions. A recent website visit does not turn an old instrument into a newly issued one, and an official-looking URL does not establish that the displayed record matches your property.
Keep the source class attached to the wording. A promoter claim, a secondary summary and an authenticated original should not collapse into a single green badge. If authentication has not occurred, say so. This guide offers a reading method, not an authentication service.
Treat missing data as unresolved
An unavailable source can mean that the portal is restricted, the link expired, the document was withdrawn, or the record was never supplied. Do not choose an explanation without evidence. Leave the value unresolved and make the next request precise enough to address the actual gap.
Likewise, a quiet update list proves only what the registered reader and its coverage can establish. If no approved event reader is available, it cannot establish that nothing changed in the real world. Revisit the canonical project page and ask which sources and time window were actually checked.
Keep a conflict instead of averaging it away
When two sources disagree, save their source dates, inspected dates, phase labels and exact points of disagreement. A newer capture is not automatically a newer authoritative record. Ask whether the difference concerns a corrected version, another phase, a changed offer or a genuine unresolved conflict.
Do not average incompatible values or silently replace a less convenient source. A useful review packet names what remains uncertain and the person or authority who can resolve it. Retain both versions until the correction is explained; publishing and rights decisions remain separate from organising evidence for review.