ME.19:4.4 - Weigh Historical Evidence between the Actual Accounts

A reliable source can contain a fact that all serious accounts predict. Such a fact helps establish the sequence without favoring one explanation. Conversely, a potentially revealing statement may have little weight because its date, authorship or relation to the events is uncertain. Keep these questions separate from the claim grades in :4.1.

1. Make the comparison specific. For the same finding, ask how expected it would be under each serious account, given the evidence already incorporated. Explain the difference. Compatibility with one account alone is insufficient. If two causes can operate together, compare their proposed contributions or a combined account rather than forcing an exclusive choice.
2. Examine how the finding became available. Distinguish an event from a later assertion about it. Ask what the source could observe, why it was recorded, and how it was selected and preserved. A missing record weighs against an account only to the extent that the proposed event should have produced an accessible surviving record.
3. Use additional information, not additional copies. A brochure, an interview repeating it and an article citing that interview may transmit one assertion. Assess the later item conditional on what is already known; do not count it as independent corroboration. Separately established timing or Work evidence can add information even when it appears in the same archive.
4. Return a conditional comparison. State which finding favors which account and which assumptions carry that judgement. Preserve an indistinguishable result when the accounts predict the same observations or source uncertainty defeats discrimination. Check whether the preference survives plausible changes in disputed coding, source selection, dependence or the weight given to a key finding. If it does not, make that fragility part of the result. Use numerical analysis only with a justified observation model; do not invent probabilities or turn named test types into automatic grades.
5. Reconsider the relevant evidence when the account changes. A newly discovered actor, date or mechanism may alter what earlier findings would mean. Compare the revised account with the relevant prior corpus as well as the new item, keeping source dependence visible. Do not attach the old conclusion to a newly worded hypothesis without this reconsideration.
6. Return only the supported use. The comparison can identify a promising next inquiry or a bounded historical hypothesis. When a receiver needs causal reliance, supply this contribution and its limits to C.28; the comparison alone is not its complete support result. If a revised premise matters to an existing repertoire or choice, use its evidence dependencies to identify the affected ME.2, ME.5 or ME.6 result and reassess that reliance. A change to historical attribution need not invalidate an independently qualified current Method.