Knowledge integrity · public work sample
Investigation is useful only when the evidence trail survives scrutiny.
This page collects public, attributable examples of source provenance, health-information monitoring, entity reconciliation and structured-data verification. It does not present generic OSINT tool familiarity as proof of investigative ability.
Public case records
Four different investigation surfaces.
Historical objects, fast-moving health information, research entities and collaborative knowledge bases require different sources. The common discipline is traceability.
01
Historical provenance & rights
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 boundary
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.
02
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 boundary
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.
03
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 quality
Evidence boundary
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.
04
Long-running public knowledge record
Wikimedia and Wikidata: auditable source and metadata work
One public CentralAuth identity records eight years of activity across English Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons.
Work performed
- Checked citations and public claims, reconciled conflicting source details and improved structured records.
- Created or published evidence visualizations and open media with source, licensing and descriptive metadata.
- Worked across prose, structured-data and media repositories rather than a single content format.
- Maintained a public edit trail that allows individual contributions to be reviewed rather than relying on self-reported totals alone.
Capabilities demonstrated
Citation verificationStructured metadataPublic audit trailCross-project research
Evidence boundary
The aggregate contribution count demonstrates sustained activity, not that every edit was investigative, high quality or independently validated. Individual examples must be assessed on their own histories and sources.
Method
A reusable investigation workflow.
The method is intentionally tool-agnostic. Search engines, archives and structured databases change; the reasoning and documentation requirements remain.
Question decomposition
Translate a broad claim into identities, dates, locations, source types and falsifiable sub-questions.
Source hierarchy
Prioritize primary records, official datasets, scholarly literature and attributable public documentation.
Cross-source checking
Compare independent records, dates, wording and metadata; document unresolved disagreement rather than forcing certainty.
Provenance & rights
Track who created a record, how it was obtained, what can be published and which licensing or permission evidence exists.
Entity reconciliation
Resolve naming variants, organizations, identifiers and relationships across websites and structured databases.
Evidence-bound reporting
Separate what the source directly supports from inference, platform labels, private context or unverified interpretation.
Ethical boundary
Open-source research is not permission to expose people.
The portfolio focuses on public-interest knowledge, scientific claims, systems and attributable public records. It does not publish private identifiers, doxxing material, invasive personal profiling or methods designed to bypass legitimate access controls.
For professional trust & safety or investigation work, collection and disclosure should remain proportionate to the risk, authorized by the organization and documented under the applicable privacy and safety rules.
Application lane
Trust, safety & knowledge integrity.
The current evidence supports analyst, research and operations roles. It does not support presenting the profile as an application-security engineer, penetration tester or covert investigator.