How this site grades a claim

What a claim has to carry before it is published

Three things, and there is no shorter path. The site's own components enforce it: the component that renders a claim throws at build time if it is handed one without a grade or without a source, and the build gate refuses to ship a page where a claim from the research file appears with its source stripped off. That is deliberately not left to editorial discipline. Discipline fails on page thirty-one.

1. A sentence that can be read alone. A claim is written so it survives being lifted out of the page and quoted somewhere else — by a person, or by a model summarising the web. If it only makes sense with the paragraph above it, it is prose, not a claim.
2. A grade. One of the four below. Not a hedge word and not a tone: a labelled value, the same on every page, and present in the plain-text mirror as a written word rather than as a colour.
3. The material it came from, named and dated, and linked wherever that material is public. The date is the date of the source, not the date we read it.

Where a claim carries a note, the note is for the reasoning — why this source, why this grade, what would change it. It is never used to smuggle in a second, ungraded claim.

Who gets believed

In order: the publisher, its regulatory filings, and its named staff speaking on the record. Then material anybody can check — a storefront listing, a document with a date on it. Then reporting that names who it heard from. Then, a long way down, an anonymous claim relayed by an outlet, which can reach rumoured and can never reach confirmed however many other sites repeat it.

Repetition is not evidence. A number that has appeared on two hundred pages and originates on none of them is worth exactly what it was worth on the day somebody invented it, and the fact base carries a standing example.

What is never published here

Some material would bring traffic and is not published regardless. Writing about a leak — what was claimed, by whom, on what date, and what grade that earns — is commentary, and this site does it. Reproducing the material is a different act, and this site does not do it, on any page, in any form:

• stills, video or audio taken from leaked or stolen builds
• game assets, models, textures or source code from any breach
• reuploaded first-party trailers or artwork presented as our own
• AI-generated images passed off as official art or as real screenshots

The last of those four is what quietly ruins reference sites about unreleased games. Every image on GTA6Notes is our own original artwork, made for this site. None of it is a screenshot, a frame of official footage, a piece of key art, or a depiction of any character from the game — and where an illustration shows a person, that person is invented, and the page says so in visible text under the picture rather than only in an alt attribute. The build gate fails if that label is missing, and fails if any alt text anywhere on the site describes our own drawing as a screenshot, as gameplay, as official art or as a leak.

This site also carries no advertising script, no tracker, no comment thread, no contact form and no email address. The last two are policy rather than oversight, and what that means for reporting an error is set out on corrections.

What happens when this site is wrong

It will be. The subject is a moving target reported largely through intermediaries, and a site that had never printed a correction would be a site that had never checked. Two rules cover it, and both are structural rather than aspirational:

• A correction is never a deletion. A claim contradicted by first-party material is regraded debunked, kept on the page, and struck through, so that somebody arriving from an old link finds the correction where the error was.
• Every change is dated in public. Substantive edits and every correction are recorded on the changelog, newest first, and the entry stays there permanently.

There is a standing example on this site of why that matters: a first-party plan stated publicly and then changed inside a day. Had the page simply been replaced, both the original statement and the change would have vanished.

How to check this site rather than trust it

Every page carries the date its claims were last checked against their sources, and every claim links to the material itself wherever that material is public. The intended use is that you follow the link and read the original — the value here is in the sorting and the grading, not in being taken at our word.

Two things make that easier at scale. Every page is published a second time as plain text at the same address, with .md in place of the trailing slash, generated from the rendered page so it cannot drift from what a reader sees. And llms.txt lists the whole site, the grade definitions and the current counts in a single file, which is the polite way to be read by a machine.

The rest of this section

What each of the four grades means, what counts as evidence, what this site will never publish, and what happens when this site gets something wrong.

• The four grades — Each grade in full: what earns it, what loses it, and a worked example already published on this site.
• Source policy — Who gets believed, in what order, and why a track record counts for less than it is usually given credit for.
• Corrections and contact — What happens when this site is wrong, how fast it is fixed, and what stays visible afterwards.
• What changed, and when — The dated record: every substantive change to this site, including every correction, newest first.