Source verification · public work samples
Investigation is useful only when the evidence trail survives scrutiny.
This page collects attributable examples of original article creation, scientific and technical localization, contested-source policy synthesis, consumer-genomics privacy research, corporate-source reconciliation, archival record recovery, legally sensitive chronology, source-quality review, biomedical evidence synthesis, health-information monitoring and research-data provenance. It shows the reasoning and records behind the work rather than relying on a generic OSINT tool list.
Primary public case records
Seven investigation surfaces.
Politically contested policy proposals, consumer-genomics privacy, biomedical taxonomy, research entities, archival legal records, disputed biographies and fast-moving health information require different tools. The common discipline is traceability and proportionate disclosure.
01
Consumer-genomics privacy & corporate-source reconciliation
Nebula Genomics: tracing privacy, corporate and legal claims over time
A personal-genomics company's public record changed across a sequencing partnership, sequencing-location statements, privacy-policy language, third-party data questions, corporate restructuring and federal litigation.
Work performed
- Built and maintained a sourced privacy section using independent reporting, peer-reviewed genomic-risk analysis, archived company pages, privacy policies, SEC filings and litigation coverage.
- Reconciled the historical BGI sequencing relationship with later company statements about European sequencing, preserving dates rather than presenting different operating periods as simultaneous facts.
- Expanded the third-party-data analysis using a peer-reviewed risk paper and an archived privacy policy, while distinguishing documented policy language from hypotheses about downstream data use.
- Added later corporate and litigation developments, removed duplicative or promotional citations and maintained neutral sourcing during a contentious public editorial process—including requesting evidence for unsupported criticism.
Capabilities demonstrated
Corporate-source reconciliationPrivacy-policy analysisArchived web researchLitigation trackingContent-governance judgment
Evidence limits
The linked records verify attributable edits and public sources. The case does not independently conclude that Nebula sold genetic data, violated the law or that any participating editor was affiliated with the company. Lawsuit allegations remain allegations, and the procedural record must be updated as the case changes.
02
Policy research & contested-source synthesis
Freedom Cities: creating a neutral English-language policy article
An emerging US political and urban-development proposal was documented across campaign material, academic analysis, think-tank plans, draft legislation and independent reporting, without an existing English Wikipedia article that brought the evidence together.
Work performed
- Researched, structured and created an 18,351-byte English Wikipedia article, then moved it from userspace into mainspace on 16 August 2025.
- Synthesized the original proposal, technological and social vision, supporting organizations, legal pathways, regulatory exemptions, infrastructure feasibility, governance concerns and ideological analysis.
- Balanced primary advocacy material with academic research and independent reporting, attributing contested interpretations and separating proposal details from criticism.
- Continued categorization and maintenance after publication; the current collaborative article is assessed as B-Class by several WikiProjects.
Capabilities demonstrated
Policy researchNeutral explanatory writingContested-source synthesisInformation architectureCitation management
Evidence limits
Wikipedia is collaborative and the current article includes later edits by other contributors. The exact creation revision verifies the initial 18,351-byte contribution. B-Class is a WikiProject assessment, not academic peer review, independent publication approval or endorsement of the proposal.
03
Biomedical evidence synthesis & taxonomy
Syndromic autism: building a structured biomedical evidence section
The English Wikipedia autism article lacked a structured explanation of syndromic and non-syndromic autism and a comparative representation of associated genetic conditions.
Work performed
- Synthesized peer-reviewed biomedical literature into a sourced explanation of syndromic and non-syndromic autism.
- Organized clinically defined, molecularly defined and currently undefined categories using phenotype-first and genotype-first concepts.
- Built a sortable table connecting conditions, genetic or chromosomal causes, loci, autism-prevalence estimates, clinical classification and associated characteristics.
- Performed follow-up corrections, link resolution and terminology improvements; the material was later moved into a dedicated article.
Capabilities demonstrated
Biomedical literature synthesisTaxonomy designStructured evidencePrevalence extractionIterative quality control
Evidence limits
The revision history verifies the attributed contribution and cited literature. It is encyclopedia editing and evidence synthesis, not original clinical research or medical guidance.
04
Entity verification & research provenance
Yourself to Science: verifying participation opportunities
A public directory helps people identify research initiatives that accept genomes, health data, biological samples or other forms of participation.
Work performed
- Defined inclusion and exclusion criteria for clinical studies, biobanks, registries, donation programs and related initiatives.
- Structured fields for organization, participation type, geographic availability, data or sample type, source URL and licensing context.
- Reconciled organizations and initiatives across public websites, Wikidata, FAIRsharing, Zenodo and other primary records.
- Created update and provenance workflows so a visible directory entry can be traced to an inspectable source.
Capabilities demonstrated
Entity reconciliationInclusion criteriaSource traceabilityStructured-data qualityWikimedia and Wikidata: auditable source and metadata work
Evidence limits
The directory verifies public participation information at the time of review. It does not independently audit the scientific quality, privacy practices or institutional claims of every listed initiative.
05
Archival OSINT & legal chronology
Archival reconstruction of a legally sensitive public record
A missing and fragmented public record concerned a journalist's reporting on an alleged internal organization chart, followed by criminal, appellate, cassation and civil proceedings.
Work performed
- Recovered unavailable or unstable source material through web archives, URL matching and reconstruction of likely document paths.
- Located an archived copy of the original 2008 newspaper PDF and reconciled it with contemporary reporting, court coverage and later procedural developments.
- Built a dated chronology that distinguishes the original allegations, acquittals, appellate reasoning, the Court of Cassation reversal and later civil consequences.
- Used attributed and legally cautious wording rather than collapsing conflicting judicial stages into a single conclusion.
Capabilities demonstrated
Archival OSINTLost-document recoveryLegal chronologySource reconciliationRisk-aware writing
Evidence limits
The public Wikipedia diff verifies the text, citations and edit attribution. The portfolio describes source-recovery and synthesis work; it does not provide an independent legal opinion or make claims beyond the cited public record.
06
Content governance & source-quality review
Biographical source-quality and notability review
A public biography contained promotional language, weak or mismatched citations, heavy reliance on primary sources and disputed claims about academic, scientific and public significance. The review developed inside a contentious deletion process involving the biographical subject and multiple editors.
Work performed
- Opened and checked cited sources against the claims they were used to support, identifying mismatches between article wording and the underlying records.
- Searched SCImago, Scopus and Web of Science; compared publication, citation and h-index evidence with official Italian academic-qualification thresholds.
- Distinguished research articles from letters to the editor, evaluated source independence and journal context, and examined potentially pseudoscientific claims without treating topic alone as proof of pseudoscience.
- Documented uncertainty explicitly, separated hypotheses from established findings, corrected procedural mistakes when identified and maintained an evidence-based position during adversarial and legally sensitive discussion.
Capabilities demonstrated
Source-quality auditingBibliometric researchContent governancePolicy applicationAdversarial stakeholder handling
Evidence limits
The linked pages document a public collaborative moderation process, not a personal verdict on the subject's character or scientific work. The deletion outcome reflects community consensus under Wikipedia policy.
07
Rapid health-information monitoring
H5N1 situation tracker: dated developments and source reconciliation
A public-facing rolling article tracked fast-changing H5N1 developments across human cases, animal outbreaks and public-health reporting.
Work performed
- Co-authored the tracker and organized developments chronologically so readers could distinguish current information from earlier reporting.
- Compared reports across scientific, public-health and reputable journalistic sources, preserving outbound citations.
- Separated confirmed developments from broader pandemic-risk interpretation and updated the article as the evidence changed.
- Translated a technically complex and uncertain evidence landscape into concise public communication.
Capabilities demonstrated
Live source monitoringChronologyCross-source corroborationUncertainty communication
Evidence limits
This is a public science-communication record, not an intelligence product or an independent epidemiological surveillance system. Source selection and editorial decisions are visible only to the extent documented in the article.
Selected article and provenance evidence
Additional provenance and rights work.
These lower-priority examples demonstrate scientific and technical translation, terminology adaptation, source enrichment, post-publication maintenance and rights provenance. They support research, editorial and source-quality applications without displacing the stronger flagship investigations above.
S1
Scientific localization & source enrichment
Daniela Bortoletto: developing an Italian particle-physics biography
An English biography of the Italian particle physicist Daniela Bortoletto was translated and adapted for Italian readers, then expanded and prepared for publication through terminology, sourcing and structure work.
Work performed
- Created an 8,721-byte Italian draft through Content Translation on 30 August 2021.
- Reworked the article structure, corrected specialist terminology and added or repaired sources covering Oxford, CERN, detector development and the discoveries of the top quark and Higgs boson.
- Consulted the Italian Wikipedia physics and biography projects about notability, then moved the completed draft into mainspace on 26 February 2022.
- Continued post-publication corrections, categorization, authority control and link maintenance.
Capabilities demonstrated
Scientific localizationPhysics terminologySource enrichmentCross-language adaptationIterative editorial quality
Evidence limits
The article began as a translation and is now collaborative. The history verifies the attributed creation and later revisions; this is not original particle-physics research or an independently commissioned biography.
S2
Technical-policy translation & terminology
Biblioteca ombra: translating research-access infrastructure
The English article on shadow libraries was adapted into Italian across scholarly communication, copyright, open access and distributed technical infrastructure.
Work performed
- Created a 9,713-byte Italian article through Content Translation on 26 July 2023 and moved the completed draft into mainspace the same day.
- Adapted terminology spanning academic publishing, copyright, open access, databases, BitTorrent, the dark web and IPFS.
- Removed unsupported source-language templates, repaired citations and links, added Italian sources and refined legal and technical terminology after publication.
- Maintained the article through subsequent terminology and source corrections.
Capabilities demonstrated
Technical localizationScholarly-communication researchLegal-risk framingTerminology adaptationCitation repair
Evidence limits
The article is a translated and collaborative encyclopedia entry, not original legal analysis. Its present maintenance notices and broad legal claims mean the attributable creation history is a stronger work sample than the current page alone.
S3
Additional provenance & rights example
Fascist-era carpenter's pencil: provenance, description and permission
Four photographs of a privately held historical carpenter's pencil were supplied directly by the original photographer. The object carries Fascist-era anti-tuberculosis inscriptions and belonged to Aristide Ravaglia, an Italian joiner born in 1890.
Work performed
- Prepared concise English and Italian descriptions and captions for the front, reverse and angled views.
- Transcribed and translated the inscriptions while preserving the original political and historical context.
- Documented ownership context, photographer attribution, source route and reusable licensing information.
- Published the records through Wikimedia Commons; the visible file page records permission reviewed by Wikimedia's Volunteer Response Team.
Capabilities demonstrated
Source provenanceRights and authorship contextBilingual metadataHistorical object documentation
Evidence limits
The public record verifies the uploaded media, descriptions, author attribution and VRT permission status. Private correspondence and the complete family-history verification process are not published.
Method
A reusable investigation process.
Tools change, but the core process remains: define the claim, recover the best evidence, establish provenance, compare independent records and report only what survives scrutiny.
Question decomposition
Translate a broad claim into identities, dates, locations, source types, legal or scientific stages and falsifiable sub-questions.
Search & recovery
Use advanced web and scholarly search, archives, URL reconstruction, bibliographic databases and public revision histories to recover attributable evidence.
Source hierarchy
Prioritize primary records, court or institutional documents, official datasets, scholarly literature and reputable independent reporting.
Cross-source checking
Compare independent records, dates, wording and metadata; document unresolved disagreement rather than forcing certainty.
Taxonomy & entity reconciliation
Resolve naming variants, organizations, identifiers, scientific categories and relationships across prose and structured records.
Evidence limits & reporting
Separate what a source directly supports from company statement, allegation, hypothesis, inference, community decision, platform label or unverified interpretation.
Ethical and legal boundary
Public records still require proportionate handling.
The portfolio focuses on public-interest knowledge, scientific claims, political and technical systems, and attributable public records. Corporate, politically contested and legally sensitive cases are described as source recovery, policy analysis, chronology and editorial-governance work—not as advocacy or independent findings of liability or misconduct.
Living-person names are omitted from promotional headings when they add little hiring value. Exact public records remain available through neutral evidence links. The portfolio does not publish private identifiers, doxxing material, confidential correspondence or methods designed to bypass legitimate access controls.
Application lane
Trust, safety & source quality.
The current evidence supports analyst, research and support roles involving public-source investigation, content governance, data quality and reporting that separates evidence from inference. It does not support presenting the profile as an application-security engineer, penetration tester or covert investigator.