Method: Absorbing what already exists — audit first, never rebuild

The fastest way to waste a volunteer’s evening is to have them re-research something someone already answered. Before we scope any new research effort, we first measure what earlier work — ours or someone else’s — already covers. This is how we do that: audit first, credit what’s already built, and only spend new effort on the actual gap that’s left.

What it produces

A living map of what’s already been answered, by whom, and how solidly — so that new research only ever targets a real, measured gap instead of ground already covered. Where earlier material clears our own verification bar, it gets folded into our public record with a clear note of where it came from, never re-published as if it were newly discovered.

How it works, step by step

Measure what already exists, before committing to new work. Before any research effort is scoped, we check what earlier reports, briefs, pages, or archived projects already answer the same question. Existing work is treated as an asset to build on, not something to ignore because it's inconvenient to check.
Log what was found, and how solid it is. The audit's findings get recorded against our coverage map: which piece of earlier work covers which question, and what state it’s in — built, checked, or still missing. This keeps the map honest about what we actually have, not what we assume we have.
Earlier work still has to clear our own bar. Crediting something as already covered doesn’t exempt it from verification. Material absorbed from an earlier project goes through the same backwards-checking process as anything written fresh before it can appear on a public page.
New research only targets the measured gap. Once the audit is done, new effort is scoped only against what’s actually missing — this is the entire point: it’s how we avoid re-doing work that’s already been done well.
Bringing material in follows one proven path. When earlier material is going to actually be used, it comes in through a single established intake process, rather than being copied piecemeal by whoever happens to need it that day.
A standing routine keeps the map honest. A recurring check re-verifies version history, regenerates counts directly from the real files rather than trusting a previous summary, re-flags any claim that's been disputed since the last pass, and looks for outdated language that needs updating or retiring.
Judgment calls go to a person, not a script. Deciding what to bring in from a sensitive or complicated prior project, how to handle anything that needs redaction, or how to frame material that's been deliberately held back is a human decision every time — flagged for a real person's judgment, never auto-decided.
Every absorbed file keeps its paper trail. Anything brought in from earlier work carries a permanent note at the top: where it came from, when, who brought it in, why, and what if anything was redacted. That note is never stripped out for tidiness.

How it's checked

Every absorbed file's origin note is itself a checkable claim — a reader (or another reviewer) can trace any piece of carried-forward material back to exactly where it came from, because that trail is treated as permanent record, not decoration. The coverage map's own counts are regenerated directly from a live look at the actual files each time it's updated, never copied forward from an earlier report's own summary — we've caught our own prior counts being wrong this way, and the fix is always to re-derive from source, not to trust either of two conflicting past reports. Material absorbed from an earlier project is required to pass the same independent verification gate as anything written new, so "it's already documented somewhere" is never by itself a reason something appears on a public page.

What it honestly costs

This is a light-footprint method relative to fresh research — that's its purpose. One pass typically covers a bounded set of checks: has anything drifted since the last review, are the counts still accurate, does any previously-flagged item need attention, is any language now out of date. Most of that runs without needing anyone's active decision. What does need a real person's attention, every time, is any judgment call about what to bring in from a sensitive or complicated prior project and how to handle it — that never gets decided automatically, no matter how routine the rest of the pass is.

Known limits

Said plainly: the underlying rule here is short and clear, but exactly how material actually gets brought in — the practical how-to of moving something from an old project into current use — is still more precedent than a single written procedure a newcomer could follow start to finish. The path for routing a sensitive import decision to a person is informal too: it lands with whoever's doing the next review, without a formal intake queue or a guaranteed turnaround time yet. And we don't keep a dedicated log of everything that's gone wrong with this process specifically — what we know about past mistakes here comes from version-history notes on the affected documents themselves, not a purpose-built incident record. None of that means the method doesn't work; it means the documentation of it is less complete than the method itself.

What stays internal, and why

Original material from frozen or prior projects that we draw on is kept read-only and unedited in place — we never rewrite someone else's earlier work, only cite and build on it. Some archived material is deliberately sealed and stays sealed, with its own terms for the one narrow way it can be referenced, rather than opened up wholesale. The origin note on every absorbed file is treated as essential, not optional paperwork — removing one would break the chain of custody a reader depends on. And the same rule that governs everything else here applies without exception: no real names, no personal or individually-identifying material from an earlier project ever enters our public record.

Want to run this kind of audit for your own project? Start here: Run this in your municipality. Curious how we decide anything is true before we publish it at all? Read How we verify.

— The Unknown Soldier · uniteTOlove · Toronto