Skip to content
Capacity Signal
Menu

Methodology

Every material claim carries its evidence history.

An assessment produces a register of claims, each with a chain of custody and a status. It does not rank, score, or certify, and absence from a report is not a negative finding.

What an assessment produces

The output is a register of claims

01 A bounded register
The firms that at least one open source describes as offering a capability in scope, at an address in the geography, under a stated inclusion rule.
02 Claims, not profiles
Each material statement about a firm is recorded as a separate claim with its own evidence, reviewer, and status.
03 A chain per claim
The source class, the locator, the retrieval date, the verbatim excerpt, the reviewer, the rationale, and what would move the status.
04 Stated limits
What the brief looked for and could not find, and what it did not look for at all.
05 A version and a cutoff
Every brief is dated twice: the research cutoff and the publication date. Corrections create a new version; nothing is edited in place.

What it does not claim

Five things a Capacity Brief is not

It does not rank
There is no ordering of suppliers by any measure. The register sorts by record, name, location, work package, or open items — never by merit.
It does not score
There is no composite number. A status is per claim and says how far that claim can be relied on.
It does not certify
A Reviewed status means a named person confirmed a source says what the claim says. It is not an audit, an inspection, or a qualification.
Absence is not a finding
A firm missing from a register was not described in the open sources searched. That is a coverage limit, and nomination is free.
Unverified is not deficient
It means no adequate open source was found for a material claim. It is a routing instruction: verify next.

Status vocabulary

Three statuses, and how each is assigned

A status is a routing instruction, not a rating. Shape and outline carry the same information as colour, so a printed or greyscale brief reads identically. The warm accent never carries a status.

Claim status · over evidence status
Status Over evidence Meaning How it is assigned
Evidence status: established. Reviewed established A named reviewer read the source in context and recorded that it directly supports the claim as worded. Requires at least one primary open source that states the claim, a retrieval date inside the freshness window, and a reviewer rationale. Reviewer disagreement blocks this status.
Evidence status: partial. Supported partial One or more open sources are consistent with the claim, but the support is indirect, secondary, self-declared, or not yet reviewed in context. Assigned automatically when a source is captured and the claim is extracted, and held until a reviewer either promotes it to Reviewed or demotes it to Unverified.
Evidence status: open. Unverified open The claim is material to the decision and no adequate open source has been found, or the only source has aged out of its window. Assigned when a search of the source classes in scope returns nothing usable, when a source goes stale, or when a reviewer finds the source does not say what was extracted. It is a routing instruction — verify next — not a finding against the supplier.

Qualifiers on an evidence row

A qualifier explains why a particular source does not establish the claim on its own. It sits on the evidence row, not on the claim, and it never adds a fourth status.

Evidence status: partial. Self-reported — under review
Supplier-provided information awaiting independent review.
Evidence status: partial. Estimated
A transparent method was used where direct evidence was unavailable.
Evidence status: conflict. Disputed
Credible sources or parties conflict.
Evidence status: open. Stale
The evidence is outside its freshness window.

Worked example

One record, read the way a reviewer reads it

Evidence trace · worked example CS / DEF / 001 · R-011

Which Atlantic Canadian suppliers appear relevant to defined naval maintenance and sustainment work — and what must be confirmed before engagement?

Record R-011 · Norrell Marine Coatings Ltd. · Dartmouth, NS


  1. Capability R-011.1 Application of high-performance marine coating systems, including underwater hull anti-fouling. 1 source · retrieved 2026-07-15 chain Evidence status: established. Reviewed

    Evidence · 1 source

    1. 01
      CanadaBuys contract history Public Services and Procurement Canada

      CanadaBuys award record, hull coating, 2025 (illustrative locator AW-25-0333) retrieved

      “Surface preparation and application of anti-fouling coating system to underwater hull.”
    Reviewer
    Reviewer A (analyst) · signed
    Status
    Evidence status: established. Reviewed over evidence established
    Rationale
    Award record establishes the capability class directly.

    Cite as

    Capacity Signal, CS/DEF/001, Preview 0.2 (2026-08-18), claim R-011.1, status Reviewed. https://capacitysignal.ca/reports/cs-def-001/claims/r-011-1/

  2. Certification R-011.2 Holds ISO 9001:2015 certification. 1 source · retrieved 2026-07-15 chain Evidence status: partial. Supported

    Evidence · 1 source

    1. 01
      Accredited certification-body registers Registrars accredited by the Standards Council of Canada

      Registrar public certificate register retrieved

      Certificate located under a name that differs from the registered name by a suffix.

      Evidence status: conflict. Disputed The source may not refer to this entity. Held until the identity is settled.

    Reviewer
    Reviewer A (analyst) · not yet signed
    Status
    Evidence status: partial. Supported over evidence partial
    Rationale
    The certificate may belong to this firm or to a related entity. Recorded as disputed until the entity match is settled.
    What would move it
    Registry lookup of the certificate holder’s registered name, or the firm confirming which entity holds it.

    Cite as

    Capacity Signal, CS/DEF/001, Preview 0.2 (2026-08-18), claim R-011.2, status Supported. https://capacitysignal.ca/reports/cs-def-001/claims/r-011-2/

  3. Registration R-011.3 Registered under the Controlled Goods Program. No open source located chain Evidence status: open. Unverified

    Evidence · 0 sources

    No open source in scope was located at retrieval. The claim is recorded because it is material to the decision question; absence of evidence is an open item, not a finding.

    Reviewer
    Reviewer A (analyst) · not yet signed
    Status
    Evidence status: open. Unverified over evidence open
    Rationale
    No public registration status located.
    What would move it
    Status from the program record.

    Cite as

    Capacity Signal, CS/DEF/001, Preview 0.2 (2026-08-18), claim R-011.3, status Unverified. https://capacitysignal.ca/reports/cs-def-001/claims/r-011-3/

Sources
2
Reviewed
1 of 3
Open
1
Latest retrieval
2026-07-15

Claim 1 is Reviewed: an award record describes the same class of work, a reviewer read it and signed. Claim 2 is Supported with a Disputed qualifier: a certificate exists under a name that differs from the registered name by a suffix, so it may belong to a related entity — held until the identity is settled. Claim 3 is Unverified: no public registration status was found. None of the three is a finding about the firm. Each names what to verify next.

Illustrative research preview. Every supplier in this register is fictional and no finding about any real firm is published. The structure — claim, source, date, reviewer, status — is the product.

Research sequence

Six steps, in order, every time

  1. 01

    Frame

    Define the decision question, geography, work packages, inclusion rule, and the open source classes in scope. Record any sponsor.

  2. 02

    Retrieve

    Search each source class. Keep a snapshot and retrieval date for every source. Nothing is retrieved from a non-public or clearance-gated system.

  3. 03

    Extract

    Turn each source into claims: one statement, one kind, one firm. Self-declared sources are marked as such at extraction.

  4. 04

    Grade

    A claim with a consistent source is Supported. A named reviewer promotes it to Reviewed with a rationale, or demotes it to Unverified. Nothing adequate found: Unverified.

  5. 05

    Publish

    Cover, register, every chain, stated limits, colophon, change history. Printable, citable, with a stable reference per claim.

  6. 06

    Correct

    Any correction is reviewed by a person and appended as a new evidence row with its date. The change history records it. Nothing is edited in place.

Source classes and freshness

Open sources, each with a window

Source class Publisher Window (days)
Canadian Company Capabilities Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada 180
Controlled Goods Program — registration status Public Services and Procurement Canada 90
CanadaBuys contract history Public Services and Procurement Canada 90
Provincial corporate registries Nova Scotia RJSC · Service New Brunswick · NL Registry of Companies · PEI Corporate Registry 365
Accredited certification-body registers Registrars accredited by the Standards Council of Canada 180
Supplier corporate publications The supplier 180

Stated limits

What the method does not do

  1. 01

    A status describes the evidence, not the firm.

    Two firms with identical capability can hold different statuses because one is described in a public award record and one is not. The method measures what can be shown from open sources.

  2. 02

    Reviewers read sources; they do not visit facilities.

    Nothing here substitutes for qualification, audit, or site inspection. A brief tells a buyer what to verify next and gives the citation to start from.

  3. 03

    Freshness is bounded by the source, not by us.

    A registry updated annually cannot support a claim more freshly than annually. Each source class carries its own window and a stale source drops the claim a step.