Sources and evidence
A calmer way to manage peak electricity demand
Every source this article draws on, the claims it supports, and the exact passage each claim rests on.
How we know
The short version first: what is claimed, how firmly, and what would change it. The full claim-by-claim and source-by-source record follows below.
The fictional Riverlight retrofit reduced peak demand by 12 percent in the measured pilot.
Source identity
- Status
- supported
- Supporting sources
- 1
- Recency
- Not recorded for this claim.
- Confidence
- 0.92
- Uncertainty
- 0.08
The fictional 12 percent result is disputed because the comparison window excluded an outage week.
Source identity
- Status
- disputed
- Supporting sources
- 1
- Recency
- Not recorded for this claim.
- Confidence
- 0.8
- Uncertainty
- 0.2
What would change this: a correction to any supporting source or a failed re-verification. Corrections are public on the story's correction record. Correction history
Claim
The fictional Riverlight retrofit reduced peak demand by 12 percent in the measured pilot.
Claim Status supported Materiality material Confidence 0.92 Type fact Verification policy id desk-standard-v1 Editorial disposition include Relation: supports Source Relation Strength Verified Cited passage Riverlight pilot brief supports direct The fictional Riverlight retrofit reduced peak demand by 12 percent in the measured pilot.
The fictional Riverlight retrofit reduced peak demand by 12 percent in the measured pilot.
text 0–83sha256:1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111The fictional 12 percent result is disputed because the comparison window excluded an outage week.
Claim Status disputed Materiality material Confidence 0.8 Type allegation Verification policy id desk-standard-v1 Editorial disposition qualify Relation: supports Source Relation Strength Verified Cited passage Riverlight comparison-window review supports direct The fictional 12 percent result is disputed because the comparison window excluded an outage week.
text 0–88sha256:2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222Relation: contradicts Source Relation Strength Verified Cited passage Riverlight pilot brief contradicts moderate The pilot report uses a six-week window.
text 0–30sha256:3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
Sources
Every source this article draws on, the claims it supports, and the exact passage each claim rests on.
Riverlight pilot brief (Riverlight Cooperative)
Riverlight pilot brief
Source Canonical url /sources/source-brief Publisher Riverlight Cooperative Author Synthetic Research Team Type company-statement Directness primary Retrieved Retrieval version 1 Access public Paywall none Language en Content hash sha256:4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444Cited passage
The fictional Riverlight retrofit reduced peak demand by 12 percent in the measured pilot.
Selector: text 0–83 Hash: sha256:5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555Source signals Directness 0.9 Independence 0.4 Recency 0.9 Subject matter competence 0.8 Methodology transparency 0.7 Correction history 0.7 Corroboration 0.5 Conflict of interest 0.5 Authenticity 0.9 Retrieval integrity 1 Rights Disclosure full no-rights-record Claim Claim Relation Strength Verified The fictional Riverlight retrofit reduced peak demand by 12 percent in the measured pilot. supports direct The fictional 12 percent result is disputed because the comparison window excluded an outage week. contradicts moderate Riverlight comparison-window review (Synthetic Review Desk)
Riverlight comparison-window review
Source Canonical url /sources/source-disputed Publisher Synthetic Review Desk Type research-paper Directness secondary Retrieved Retrieval version 1 Access public Paywall none Cited passage
The fictional 12 percent result is disputed because the comparison window excluded an outage week.
Selector: text 0–88 Hash: sha256:6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666Source signals Directness 0.8 Independence 0.8 Recency 0.8 Subject matter competence 0.8 Methodology transparency 0.8 Correction history 0.8 Corroboration 0.7 Conflict of interest 0.9 Authenticity 0.9 Retrieval integrity 1 Rights Disclosure full no-rights-record Claim Claim Relation Strength Verified The fictional 12 percent result is disputed because the comparison window excluded an outage week. supports direct