Hii Research Audit v0.2
This statement records the verification practices, unresolved uncertainties, and limits governing the provisional v0.2 revision.
Governing Method
The Hii Research Audit v0.2 Verified Revision Draft prioritized primary sources, official standards, and peer-reviewed literature when verifying claims. Internal Hii methods guided the process but do not constitute external evidence.
Integrity Record
Whenever possible, information was drawn from official government websites, intergovernmental organizations, and peer-reviewed research or preprints. Secondary sources were used when primary sources were unavailable and were labeled as emerging evidence.
Claims were classified as Verified, Strong Evidence, Emerging Evidence, Expert Opinion, Open Question, Needs Verification, or Removed. Quantitative claims were expected to include sample size and study design when available.
Some adoption figures, product-history claims, and long-term psychosocial effects could not be fully verified. Those claims were softened, removed, or retained only with explicit limitations.
Some sources were behind paywalls or unavailable. Several studies were preprints. Regulatory and institutional webpages may change after publication. These constraints travel with the work.
Sources are documented with titles, authors or organizations, publication dates, URLs or DOIs, and verification status. Later revisions may narrow, correct, or remove claims as evidence changes.