Source Provenance
and Claim Mapping

Recommendation confidence depends not only on what a clinic says, but on where the information comes from, what type of fact the source is capable of supporting and whether that source remains current. Dentistry makes this distinction particularly important because a professional register, clinic treatment page, patient review, peer-reviewed paper, directory listing and Evidentity AI Demand Map observation can all contain useful information while proving completely different things.

Evidentity therefore does not treat every available source as interchangeable evidence. Source provenance is structured according to the function the source can legitimately perform. Clinic-controlled information can establish current operating facts. Professional registers can establish professional status. Published research can support general clinical or behavioural statements but cannot prove that a specific clinic has a capability. Reviews can reveal patient experience and public identity but do not automatically establish clinical scope. Evidentity's own recommendation observations can show how AI systems are currently allocating provider consideration, but they are not evidence of clinical outcomes. The purpose of the provenance framework is to keep those distinctions legible across the entire Trust layer.

A premium dental clinic is represented publicly through many independent systems that were never designed to agree perfectly. The clinic website may be current while an old directory still lists a former doctor. A professional register may correctly establish specialist status while saying nothing about the person's current procedural focus. Patient reviews may repeatedly mention implants without proving that the clinic routinely treats advanced bone-loss cases. A before-and-after case may demonstrate treatment experience while requiring attribution before it can support a clinician-specific claim. An AI model may combine several of these fragments into a recommendation without exposing how much confidence belongs to each source.

Source Provenance exists to make Evidentity's own representation more disciplined than that surrounding information environment. Every strong public claim should have a source foundation appropriate to the type of statement being made, and conflicting sources should be treated as a governance problem rather than silently averaged into one narrative.

The clinic itself is the authoritative source for many current operating facts. Approved clinic information can establish current locations, clinicians, treatment availability, consultation routes, technology held or accessed by the practice, financing providers, commercial policies, aftercare, international support and other operational relationships that management is qualified to confirm directly.

These sources normally produce Clinic-attested evidence status. They are especially important for freshness because clinic operations can change long before directories, search indexes or external profiles update. Evidentity therefore gives current clinic-approved information significant authority over present operating state while keeping clinic attestation distinct from independent external verification.

Professional and regulatory sources are used where clinician identity, professional status, specialist designation, registration, licensing or institutional relationship requires authoritative external support. These can include dental registers, specialist registers, licensing authorities, recognised professional bodies, university or hospital pages and other official professional records.

Their role is specific. A specialist register can establish a protected professional status where applicable, but it does not automatically establish every procedure the clinician performs. A university appointment can support academic affiliation but does not by itself prove current treatment volume. Evidentity therefore uses professional sources for the claims they are actually capable of supporting rather than allowing one strong credential to expand into unrelated clinical capability.

Some treatment and capability claims require more than a general service statement. Relevant evidence can include current clinician profiles, detailed treatment documentation, technology records, approved case material, clinic policies, published pathways and other documentation directly connected to the proposition being represented.

The value of this source family lies in specificity. A documented case can support evidence of experience within a treatment category. A current clinician profile can support responsibility for a particular pathway. A documented sedation pathway can support the clinic's public representation of that service. These sources can strengthen recommendation confidence when the evidence relationship is clear enough to show what exactly the material proves.

Peer-reviewed literature, professional guidance, consensus documents and authoritative clinical research are used primarily for general clinical context, category-level statements and patient-behaviour findings. They can support claims about treatment complexity, maintenance, referral patterns, specialist roles, provider-selection behaviour or other broader propositions used in Evidentity Research and methodology.

They do not establish that a specific clinic possesses a capability. A paper about zygomatic implants can explain the treatment landscape; it cannot prove that Clinic X performs zygomatic implants. A study showing that implant patients value qualification can support a statement about provider choice; it cannot establish the qualification of a particular clinician. Evidentity keeps this distinction explicit so that scientific authority is not misused as indirect proof of client capability.

Maps, directories, review platforms, media references, insurer directories and other third-party surfaces are important because AI systems may use them when reconstructing the clinic. Evidentity monitors these sources primarily as identity and consistency signals rather than treating them automatically as canonical truth.

They are useful for detecting stale clinician affiliations, incorrect locations, outdated treatment information, contradictory opening data, inconsistent specialty labels and other forms of public information drift. Where third-party information agrees with current clinic truth, it can reinforce external consistency. Where it conflicts, the discrepancy becomes part of the Recommendation Intelligence and governance workflow rather than being allowed to override current first-party reality silently.

Evidentity also generates its own observational data through repeated model × treatment × geography × patient-scenario testing. These observations support the AI Demand Map, competitor substitution analysis, Model Divergence, Recommendation Stability, Algorithmic Silence analysis and other recommendation-market findings.

This source class is different from clinical evidence. It does not establish that a clinic is clinically superior or that a treatment will produce a particular outcome. It establishes what Evidentity has observed about recommendation behaviour under the defined test conditions. A clinic appearing repeatedly in severe-bone-loss scenarios is evidence of current recommendation participation, not independent verification of clinical competence. A competitor recurring in a scenario is evidence of substitution behaviour, not proof that the competitor is objectively the better clinical provider.

Keeping these source classes separate is essential to the integrity of the AI Demand Map.

Some Evidentity outputs arise from structured methodology rather than direct live observation. Derived treatment relationships, scenario classifications, Addressable Recommendation Footprint, modeled commercial pathways, analytical categories and certain comparative frameworks belong to this class.

Modeled outputs are identified as such and remain distinct from observed recommendation behaviour. This allows Evidentity to use sophisticated analytical structures without presenting a model, hypothesis or derived relationship as though it were an externally verified fact.

Every material public statement should be traceable to an appropriate foundation: clinic-controlled fact, authoritative professional source, documented clinic evidence, external clinical or market research, observed recommendation data, or an explicitly modeled Evidentity output. Where no appropriate source exists, the statement retains a declared status rather than floating as an unsupported assertion.

The source therefore has to match the claim. Current clinician availability should map to current clinic or professional information. Specialist status should map to the relevant professional authority. A complex capability claim should map to current clinic evidence and clinician responsibility. A market adoption statistic should map to external research. AI Demand Map findings should map to Evidentity's observed testing. A future product capability should remain planned rather than being described through unrelated evidence.

Evidentity prefers primary and authoritative sources wherever the type of claim allows it. Publication date, last review date, current applicability and source authority are considered together because a prestigious source can still be operationally obsolete. A former clinic biography may once have been authoritative and still be wrong today. A professional register may be current while an old directory is not. A high-quality research paper may remain useful for clinical context while being irrelevant to a current clinic affiliation.

Where strong claims rely on sources whose status changes materially, Evidentity reviews, revises, downgrades or retires the claim. Source quality is therefore treated as an ongoing governance condition rather than a one-time citation exercise.

Conflicting information is not resolved automatically by whichever source is most visible online. Evidentity evaluates the type of fact in dispute and gives authority to the source appropriate to that fact. Current clinic operations are normally resolved through the clinic's approved current record. Professional status is resolved through the relevant professional authority. Recommendation behaviour is resolved through observed testing. Historical public information remains relevant as evidence of drift but does not become current truth merely because it remains indexed.

This conflict logic is particularly important for clinician movement, multi-location groups, treatment availability and commercial conditions, where old information can remain discoverable long after management has changed the operating reality.

/sources explains where support comes from. /verification explains what state the claim currently occupies and how that claim may be published. The two pages operate together but answer different questions.

A treatment capability might be Conditional, supported by Clinic-attested + Publicly documented evidence and approved for Public with qualification publication. A clinician credential might be Confirmed, Externally supported and Public. A modeled scenario relationship may be marked Modeled and used internally for recommendation analysis without being presented as a verified clinical fact.

This separation gives Evidentity a much stronger Trust layer because it distinguishes current operating truth, evidence authority and analytical interpretation instead of compressing all three into a single badge.

Source mapping is maintained continuously as the clinic, its clinicians, its public environment and Evidentity's research corpus change. New evidence can strengthen a claim. A clinician departure can make previously valid evidence historical. A new clinic policy can replace an older commercial source. Recommendation observations can change as models and competitors change. The provenance framework exists to ensure that Evidentity's public and machine-readable surfaces remain reviewable, attributable and connected to the clinic's current reality rather than becoming another static collection of outdated assertions.