A reference shelf, not a news feed
Each guide answers a single question of the kind that gets typed into a search box at the moment it matters — who signs a transfer, what an unexplained interval in the record costs, whether a screenshot stands on its own, what a re-computed digest actually settles. The subjects were chosen because they recur in evidence work rather than because they were topical the week they were written, so a page from June is worth the same in December. When one falls behind, it is rewritten in place and keeps its URL instead of being replaced by a newer post at a new address.
Where the material comes from
Guides are drafted with AI assistance against a fixed brief, then read back against their sources by a separate review pass. A statement that can be checked — a rule number, a holding, a date, an attribution, a figure — either carries a citation to an approved source or it does not publish. The approved list is courts and court records, government and law-enforcement agencies, standards bodies, and open-access scholarship. Vendor marketing and SEO blogs are not acceptable sources for anything a reader might rely on, ours included. Sources are listed in full at the foot of every guide, so the reasoning can be checked rather than taken on trust.
What these pages will not tell you
The guides carry general information about evidence-handling practice, not legal advice, and none of them predicts what a court will do — that is decided by a judge on the record in front of them, case by case. Nor will a guide describe this product as having been assessed against a published standard by anybody: the design is informed by FRE 901 and NIST SP 800-86, which names what we read and claims nothing further. Our own records are tamper-evident — alteration is detectable, not prevented — and the guides are held to exactly that wording.