↓ Skip to main content
Lucerna
Lucerna
  1. Methodology/

Source Evaluation Methodology

·488 words·3 mins
Methodology Methodology Osint Sources Craap-Test Verification Reliability
Author
Lucerna
Independent OSINT research lab by FolkUp. We verify claims, investigate origins, and audit compliance.
Table of Contents

Overview
#

Framework for evaluating the reliability and quality of information sources. Combines the CRAAP test with a tiered classification system.

CRAAP Test
#

Evaluate every source against five criteria:

Currency
#

  • When was the information published or last updated?
  • Is the topic time-sensitive?
  • Are links functional and content current?
Rating Criteria
Strong Published within last 2 years; regularly updated
Adequate Published within last 5 years; still relevant
Weak Over 5 years old; may be outdated

Relevance
#

  • Does the information relate to your research question?
  • Who is the intended audience?
  • Is the information at an appropriate level (not too basic/advanced)?
Rating Criteria
Strong Directly addresses the research question; expert audience
Adequate Related to the topic; general audience
Weak Tangentially related; different context

Authority
#

  • Who is the author/publisher/source?
  • What are the author’s credentials or qualifications?
  • Is there contact information?
  • What is the URL domain? (.edu, .gov, .org, .com)
Rating Criteria
Strong Named expert with verifiable credentials; institutional affiliation
Adequate Named author with some credentials; established publication
Weak Anonymous; no credentials; unknown publication

Accuracy
#

  • Is the information supported by evidence?
  • Has it been reviewed or refereed?
  • Can you verify the information from other sources?
  • Is the language objective and free of emotion?
Rating Criteria
Strong Peer-reviewed; multiple corroborating sources; data-backed
Adequate Editorial review; some corroboration; mostly factual
Weak No review process; unverified; emotional language

Purpose
#

  • Why does this information exist?
  • Is the intent to inform, teach, sell, entertain, or persuade?
  • Are there obvious biases or conflicts of interest?
Rating Criteria
Strong Informational/educational; no commercial interest; transparent funding
Adequate Some commercial element but factual content; disclosed bias
Weak Primarily promotional; undisclosed conflicts; propaganda

Source Tiers
#

Tier 1: Primary Sources
#

Direct, first-hand evidence:

  • Original research papers and datasets
  • Government statistics and official records
  • Court documents and legal filings
  • Eyewitness accounts and interviews
  • Company financial filings (SEC, etc.)
  • Patents and technical specifications

Tier 2: Secondary Sources
#

Analysis and interpretation of primary sources:

  • Academic review articles
  • Quality journalism (investigative reporting)
  • Industry analysis reports
  • Books by subject matter experts
  • Conference proceedings

Tier 3: Tertiary Sources
#

Compilations and summaries:

  • Encyclopedias and textbooks
  • Wikipedia (as a starting point, not a citation)
  • Industry directories
  • News aggregators
  • Social media posts (as leads, not evidence)

Quick Reference
#

When citing sources in Lucerna investigations:

  1. Always prefer Tier 1 over Tier 2 over Tier 3
  2. Minimum 2 independent sources for any claim marked as “verified”
  3. Flag when only Tier 3 sources are available
  4. Note CRAAP weaknesses in the source list
  5. Date when you accessed online sources

Methodology in Practice
#

This framework is applied throughout Lucerna investigations. See Corporate Opacity — Advanced Multi-Agent OSINT Audit of an Aviation Technology Company for a detailed case study demonstrating source evaluation across claims verification, competitive analysis, and patent research.

Source Documentation Format
# 

## Sources

1. [Author Last, First. "Title." Publication, Date. URL (accessed YYYY-MM-DD)]
   - Tier: [1/2/3]
   - CRAAP: [Strong/Adequate/Weak]
   - Notes: [Any relevant context]

Related