LEX ASTRA ACADEMY SO 270 / Evidence and public accounts Lex Astra · School of Law & Public Affairs Teaching edition 2956.3 / Tabletop ———————————————————————————————————————————————— LEARNER WORKSHEET For analysts and communications staff preparing sourced public accounts. This is a private working copy. Downloading submits nothing and records no completion. Use exercise identifiers, not private player information. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— SESSION DETAILS Learner identifier: ____________________________________________________________ Instructor / assessor: ____________________________________________________________ Session date / agreed role or variant: ____________________________________________________________ Vessel, configuration and equipment: ____________________________________________________________ LIVE build / capability test date / tested by (if practical): ____________________________________________________________ Stop signal / recovery contact / communication arrangement: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— PURPOSE Correct a public account using source evidence without rewriting the underlying event to suit the announcement. COURSE CONTEXT HLN supplies an operational account; HCN retains editorial independence. This course teaches correction of the former without pretending the corporation can dictate the latter. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— ENTRY Complete: SO 120 Equipment: The course records; no private player evidence is needed. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CASE: The departure total becomes a headline 1. Record A is a dispatch manifest for six crates. 2. Record B is a receiving entry for five, with the sixth unconfirmed. 3. Record C is a public statement saying six delivered; two later reports copy that statement. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND GAME SKILLS Build reliable evidence from game observations Practical instruction revision 1 / 9 October 2026 Capture state with context For a disputed delivery or rescue, record the session build, location, time, relevant journal or terminal state and observer. A screenshot of a box proves its visible presence, not its owner or acceptance. A health display proves the displayed state at that moment, not that every injury has healed. Ask permission before recording other participants. Check independence and desynchronisation Compare a sender’s report with a receiver’s own interface or direct observation. Two people repeating one voice call are one information chain, not two confirmations. When displays disagree, preserve both and repeat a small check from each side. Avoid declaring deliberate misconduct from a stale marker, delayed objective update or missing animation. Publish the narrow supported claim Write “three passengers reached reception; one remained aboard” rather than “the evacuation succeeded” when that is the evidence. Quote uncertain counts as uncertain and identify the outstanding check. If later evidence changes the result, append a dated correction showing which claim changed and why, without publishing unnecessary account or personal details. PRACTICAL DRILL Reconcile a mission journal, a cargo or casualty report and a receiving observation that disagree. Produce a claim-to-source table and a corrected public summary. OBSERVED-SKILL CHECKS Every material claim has a specific observed source and time. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ Repeated reports are not counted as independent confirmations. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ The correction changes only what the new evidence supports. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ Apply the technical checks in the agreed role. Discussion and simulation do not certify live handling; Crew Support evidence does not confer Pilot qualification. GAME REFERENCES The linked pages were read for this revision. Community references mix release eras; each source note identifies what is used and what is excluded. Technical explanations below are an Academy synthesis, and drills and performance checks are Academy-designed. Before practice, compare the named actions with the installed LIVE build and actual equipment. Bind actions by name rather than copying old default keys. Research is not an in-game validation. Star Citizen Wiki — Cargo https://starcitizen.tools/Cargo SCU, container geometry, grids and ownership. The page also contains obsolete automatic-loading descriptions and future design intentions; these are not instructions for the present cargo interface. Star Citizen Wiki — Medical https://starcitizen.tools/Medical Body-part injuries, Hemozal, symptom medication, BDL, bed tiers and regeneration. Ship tables, resource costs and ranges change; inspect the actual bed and tool. RSI — Official patch notes https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes Primary release index for the instructor’s build check, not evidence that a particular interaction has been tested by the Academy. Official LIVE release check: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 1: Trace claims to their source Record who created each item, when the event was observed and what the item can prove. A dispatch manifest proves a departure count, not arrival. Several reports copying the same statement remain one underlying source. Build a claim-to-source table rather than collecting impressive-looking documents. For each claim, identify the closest observation, its time and the path by which it reached the writer. A manifest, a witness report and a press statement may all repeat the same dispatch figure; they are not three independent arrival confirmations. Practise: Annotate three records that disagree. Ready when: The source list separates direct evidence, interpretation and repetition. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 2: State the strongest supported finding Identify what agrees across the sources and where they conflict. Write the narrow claim that the evidence supports, even if it is less impressive than the original account. Mark the remaining question rather than selecting the most convenient version. Use confidence proportionate to the evidence. “Receiving confirmed five crates” is stronger than “all cargo appears delivered” because its scope and source are explicit. A withdrawn witness statement reduces support for the affected claim; it does not automatically invalidate every other observation or prove the witness acted dishonestly. Practise: Write a finding from the source packet. Ready when: Each finding cites evidence or clearly states its uncertainty. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 3: Correct without erasing the trail Retain the original account, identify the changed claim and explain the evidence behind the correction. Remove unnecessary personal data without hiding the reason for the change. An organisation may correct its own statement; it cannot dictate an independent news report. A correction should identify the original claim, the corrected finding and the basis for the change. Preserve a discoverable correction trail while limiting personal information to what the public account genuinely needs. Distinguish a factual correction from a change in interpretation so readers can tell whether the underlying event or its explanation has changed. Practise: Prepare a correction and source note. Ready when: The reader can identify what changed, why it changed and which question is still open. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— WORKED DECISION The original account says six delivered. The manifest supports six dispatched, while Receiving confirms five. The correction changes the claim and leaves the sixth unresolved. 1. Identify A as evidence of dispatch and B as evidence of receipt. Link the later reports back to C instead of counting them as independent confirmations. 2. Write the supported finding: six dispatched, five confirmed received, one unresolved. Attribute the receiving check and state its observation time. 3. Correct the original delivery claim with an explanation and preserve the earlier version. Provide the correction to independent reporting staff without representing it as editorial direction. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR EXERCISE Annotate the three sources and publish a short correction with the remaining question and its follow-up owner. WHAT CHANGES A witness withdraws part of an earlier account. My decision and reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR WORKING RECORD Source / creator / observation time / claim supported ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Independent evidence / copied claim / unresolved conflict ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Original statement / correction / reason / follow-up ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CHECK YOUR REASONING Can four reports repeating the dispatch office prove that all cargo arrived? My answer before consulting the explanation: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— EVIDENCE TO KEEP An annotated source list, correction and individual explanation. Criterion 1: The source list separates direct evidence, interpretation and repetition. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 2: Each finding cites evidence or clearly states its uncertainty. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 3: The reader can identify what changed, why it changed and which question is still open. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS AND NEXT ATTEMPT Demonstrated: observed work meets the criterion. Further practice required: an observed gap needs a specific practice task. Interrupted: conditions prevented valid assessment; not a failure. Not assessed: enough evidence has not yet been collected. All three criteria need individual evidence. A team result or quiz cannot replace an unobserved practical. Practice variant for a fresh attempt: Add a later verified receipt for the sixth crate. Require a dated update, not deletion of the period during which it was unresolved. My next practice task: ____________________________________________________________ Review contact: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— COMPARE AFTER ANSWERING No. Count independent evidence, not copies. Find a receiving record or qualify the arrival claim. The correction should explain that distinction without implying misconduct it cannot establish. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— SOURCE AND EDITION Case SO–6: an escort offered on conditions /academy/archives/assistance-case Law & Public Affairs case issued by CAPT Soren Achterberg in 2956. The course variants examine authority, evidence and commitments; a historical source informs the analysis but does not supply an unstated current delegation. The lessons are current Academy teaching, not newly discovered historical records. Lex Astra opened in 2891. Historical sources keep their original issuer and date; all case callsigns, quantities, times and conditions are supplied for practice. Course text revised 8 October 2026; fictional teaching edition 2956.3. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES Instruction revised 9 October 2026. Lex Astra cases supply the teaching situations. Professional references inform communication, decision-making and instructional design; they do not confer external qualifications. LIVE capabilities remain subject to the recorded session check. Cedefop · observable learning outcomes https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications/4209 Carnegie Mellon · objective / assessment alignment https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/learningobjectives.html ———————————————————————————————————————————————— INSTRUCTOR CHECK Try the exercise with the ship and equipment you will use. Brief station assignments, callsigns, channel and recovery point. Explain the command “Stop exercise” before starting. If a bug prevents completion, repeat the affected task when it works. Ask before recording the session; use player handles in your notes. Review rules: /academy/archives/academy-ordinance Teaching basis: /academy/framework#research