PSD.15:4.4 - Build a source-to-claim basis, not a popularity ranking

For every repertoire claim that can change later use, retain the source contribution and its actual limit. An instruction can describe a Method; a reported application can show that it was used; an observed interaction can illuminate a failure mechanism; a comparative study can support a bounded advantage. These are not interchangeable evidence.

A useful basis line says: this source or qualified experience supports this action or applicability claim for these conditions; this uncertainty remains; this new observation would change the offering. Include source edition, relevant locus, evidence window and original meaning where they matter. Recover contrary cases and the serious alternative, not only supportive citations.

The 2019 Smith and Shaw review provides an exploratory way to compare PSM characteristics; its classification is not an exhaustive admission rule. Kogetsidis’s 2025 application review and 2026 online review of Europe and beyond provide leads about reported applications. Their journal and search boundaries limit what they establish about practice outside that corpus. Do not rank Methods by the number or location of publications.

A recent decision-analysis synthesis such as Borgonovo et al. (2026) can identify developments in value-focused thinking, graphical modelling, uncertainty, sensitivity and information acquisition. It does not substitute for the source of a particular Method or cover every adjacent decision-support family.

Obtain missing source interpretation, domain evidence or representative evaluation through A.15.9, preserving supplier authority, and qualify actual reliance through A.10. If the decisive source contribution cannot be recovered, keep that offering conditional or return the source gap. Neither a famous school nor a new source date repairs the missing claim.