Tessère Open Witness (TOW): Guidance for Courts and Investigators
This page explains how information produced by Tessère Open Witness (TOW) should be interpreted by courts, investigators, journalists, and researchers.
What TOW records represent
TOW records represent structured reconstructions of reported observations. They are derived from civilian-submitted material and other open inputs, processed through a documented correlation and verification workflow.
A TOW event reconstruction record does not assert legal fact. It represents a reasoned aggregation of observable indicators within a defined time window and approximate location.
What TOW records do NOT establish
- No attribution of responsibility
- No determination of intent or motive
- No legal qualification of conduct
- No assessment of lawfulness or unlawfulness
TOW does not reach conclusions that would normally require judicial, investigative, or adversarial processes.
Standards of certainty
TOW uses internal confidence and corroboration indicators to manage publication decisions. These indicators are not equivalent to legal standards of proof such as “beyond reasonable doubt” or “balance of probabilities”.
They exist solely to describe the degree of internal consistency between independent observations.
Use in investigative contexts
Users remain responsible for independent verification and evidentiary assessment.
- Leads for further investigation
- Chronological reference points
- Corroborative context alongside other evidence
They should not be treated as standalone evidence or as substitutes for primary-source examination.
Immutability and revision
Event reconstruction records may be updated as new information appears. Earlier versions are retained for auditability. This reflects the evolving nature of open-source documentation, not uncertainty about process integrity.
Good-faith limitation
TOW is operated as a good-faith civilian documentation program. Publication may be delayed, limited, or withheld where disclosure could reasonably cause harm or misinterpretation.
This limitation is procedural and ethical, not evidentiary.