Coverage and Naming¶
Two kinds of confusion keep returning in mixed-evidence repositories: how much coverage a surface really has, and what a file or output name makes people assume. This page explains both in plain terms.
What This Page Helps Clarify¶
- what "coverage" means in this repository and what it does not mean
- how naming helps readers tell evidence, review, and publication surfaces apart
- why a polished label can still be dishonest if it implies more than the underlying evidence supports
What Coverage Means Here¶
Coverage in bijux-pollenomics does not mean every domain is equally complete.
Some evidence families are broader and steadier than others, and the
documentation should say that plainly.
Examples:
- pollen and boundary context are broader and more stable
- archaeology context is meaningful but still uneven across geography and source families
- animal ancient DNA remains a recovery-heavy program, so public confidence must stay closer to the weakest supporting evidence
The rule is simple: describe breadth and completeness in the same proportion that the evidence actually supports them.
Why Naming Matters¶
The repository keeps raw inputs, normalized evidence, review surfaces, and public outputs side by side. If names are vague, it becomes hard to tell which file is authoritative and which one is only a presentation surface.
The naming approach in this project tries to keep those roles visible:
- source names describe where material came from
- evidence names describe what claim is being governed
- review names describe what is being challenged or checked
- publication names describe what is shown to readers
Naming is therefore part of public honesty, not just repository tidiness. If a name makes a weak surface sound final or broad, the name is wrong for this product.
A Practical Check¶
If a file name sounds broad but the content is narrow, the page or file should say so directly. Good naming prevents a surface from sounding stronger or more complete than it really is.