How We Classify Evidence

This site argues against a development. That is a position, and we state it openly. The reason the argument is worth anything is that the evidence underneath it is labelled, and the labels mean something fixed. This page is the definition of those labels. It is published before the content it governs, so that every classification on the site has a published definition to point at from the first day.

Eight classifications, applied to every article, post, press release and podcast we publish. The classification appears as the eyebrow above the headline and as the first tag beneath it. If the two ever disagree, the eyebrow is wrong and we want to know.

Primary Document

What it means. The content is drawn directly from an original document of record — a deposited plan, a record of title, a covenant instrument, a company register entry, a filed application, a statutory notice. The document exists, it says what we say it says, and it can be obtained and checked independently of us.

What it does NOT mean. It does not mean the document is true, complete or current. A title records ownership; it does not record intention. A filed application records what was applied for; it does not record whether it is sound. This is the strongest classification we have and it is still only a statement about a piece of paper.

How it is marked. Eyebrow PRIMARY DOCUMENT; first tag Primary Document; the document reference named in the Sources list of the Evidence Statement.

Applicant Evidence

What it means. The figure or statement comes from the applicant or the applicant’s consultants — an assessment of environmental effects, an engineering design, a transport assessment, a public statement by the applicant. We reproduce it as stated.

What it does NOT mean. It does not mean we accept it, and it does not mean anyone independent has checked it. Most of the headline numbers on this site are in this category: approximately 3,000 vehicle movements a day, approximately 1,000,000 litres of wastewater a day, 2.8 tonnes of nitrogen a year. We publish them because they are the applicant’s own account of the scale of what is proposed, and we treat them as claims awaiting verification, not as findings.

How it is marked. Eyebrow APPLICANT EVIDENCE; first tag Applicant Evidence; the Status line of the Evidence Statement says whether it has been independently verified, which at present it has not.

Council & Government

What it means. The content comes from a council, a government agency, a Minister acting in an official capacity, or a statutory process — a decision, a report, an agenda, minutes, a consent condition, a published policy or plan provision.

What it does NOT mean. It does not mean the decision was correct, and it carries no implication about why it was made. This is the classification under which public officials appear on this site, and it is deliberately narrow: it describes the official act and the document recording it. It never describes a motive, and it is never used to imply one.

How it is marked. Eyebrow COUNCIL & GOVERNMENT; first tag Council & Government; the issuing body named in Sources.

Expert Evidence

What it means. The content is the opinion of an independently instructed expert, given within their field, with their instruction and method disclosed.

What it does NOT mean. It does not mean unanimity, and it does not mean the expert is right. It also does not mean us: nothing on this site is currently classified as Expert Evidence on the strength of our own reasoning. As of the date on this page no expert has been instructed and no expert is named anywhere on this site. The thirteen disciplines we believe this application requires are set out at Expert Evidence Centre.

How it is marked. Eyebrow EXPERT EVIDENCE; first tag Expert Evidence; the expert named, their instruction quoted and their declared interests published in the Evidence Statement. If we cannot publish all three, we do not use this classification.

Media Report

What it means. The content is reported by a named news organisation and we are citing that report.

What it does NOT mean. It does not mean we have verified the report, and citing it does not adopt it. A media report is evidence that something was reported. It is not evidence that the thing reported is so. Where a media report is the only source for an adverse statement about a named person or company, we do not publish the statement — we publish the fact of the report, or we wait.

How it is marked. Eyebrow MEDIA REPORT; first tag Media Report; the outlet, author and date named in Sources.

Public Statement

What it means. A person or organisation has said something publicly and we are recording that they said it — a media release, a submission, a public meeting, a published statement. This classification also covers statements by Ridgeburn Press about its own conduct, such as our corrections policy.

What it does NOT mean. It does not mean the statement is accurate. The verified fact is the statement, not its content.

How it is marked. Eyebrow PUBLIC STATEMENT; first tag Public Statement; speaker, capacity and forum named in Sources.

Analysis

What it means. The reasoning is ours. We have taken figures from the record and worked out what they imply — for example, that a daily traffic total is not the right unit for an intersection effect, or that an annual nitrogen total cannot be assessed without the area it is applied to.

What it does NOT mean. It is not expert evidence and it does not carry an expert’s weight. It also never introduces a new number. If our analysis would require a figure that is not in the record — an occupancy rate, a trip rate, a disposal area, a brightness baseline — we stop and label the gap rather than estimate it. An invented denominator produces a precise-looking answer with no basis, and that is the failure mode this whole scheme exists to prevent.

How it is marked. Eyebrow ANALYSIS; first tag Analysis; the Assumptions list of the Evidence Statement sets out every input the reasoning depends on.

Under Investigation

What it means. We consider the question live and we cannot yet answer it. The claim itself is not established — in either direction.

What it does NOT mean. It is not an insinuation, and it is not a way of publishing an allegation while disclaiming it. If we would not be prepared to publish the opposite finding with the same prominence, the item does not belong under this label. The night-sky effect of this proposal sits here because no measurement exists, and we will publish the measurement when it does even if it weakens our case. See Dark Skies.

How it is marked. Eyebrow UNDER INVESTIGATION; first tag Under Investigation; the Status line reads Unverified — under investigation and the Evidence Statement lists what would resolve it.

How the eight map onto the six ways of reading them

The brief behind this site distinguishes six categories a reader needs to keep apart. They are reading categories rather than sourcing categories, so they do not map one to one. Here is the correspondence, and where the finer distinction lives.

• Established fact → Primary Document, and Council & Government where the fact is the official act itself.
• Applicant claim → Applicant Evidence.
• Expert opinion → Expert Evidence.
• Modelling and estimates → Analysis, and Applicant Evidence where the model is the applicant’s.
• Unanswered question → Under Investigation.
• Allegation requiring investigation → Under Investigation, and only where we would publish the exculpatory finding just as readily.

One vocabulary, not two. The finer distinctions — modelled versus measured, applicant’s model versus ours, verified versus reproduced — live in the Status line of the Evidence Statement, where prose can be precise in a way that a one-word tag cannot.

The two rules we will not break

These are published here because a standard that is not public is not a standard.

Rule 1. No adverse statement about a named real person or company is published without a source link in its Evidence Statement. At launch this means The Developers and Queenstown Lakes District Council contain document references and no adverse statements at all.

Rule 2. Ministers, councillors, council officers, Ridgeburn Limited and Morven Ferry Limited appear only in process-descriptive, official-capacity terms. Motive is never asserted, inferred or implied.

We hold to these because the alternative loses. One unsourced sentence about a named person hands an opponent the only argument they need, and it discredits every properly sourced figure sitting next to it. The rules are not politeness. They are how the case survives scrutiny.

The three gap labels

There are exactly three, deliberately, so that the entire site can be audited by searching for three strings. Each always appears in bold.

• [Source to be added] — we believe the claim is sound and the citation is not yet attached. The claim stands; the paperwork is owed.
• Unverified — under investigation — the claim itself is not established. This is not a missing footnote; it is an open question.
• [Awaiting client evidence] — the platform is ready and the material has been requested and not yet supplied.

They are meant to shrink. A gap label that has not moved is a task we have not done, and it is visible to you as well as to us.

The Evidence Statement

Every article, post and press release closes with the same block: the classification, a status line, the author, the date last reviewed, the sources, the assumptions, what is not established, and the standing right of response. Where a section is empty it is omitted rather than padded. Reading the Evidence Statement first is a reasonable way to read this site.

Bylines

• Ridgeburn Press · Evidence Desk — document-based work.
• Ridgeburn Press Office — press releases and statements about our own conduct.
• Ridgeburn Press · Analysis — modelled or reasoned work.
• [Author to be named on publication] — used where an individual byline will be attached and has not been. We never invent a name.

How to challenge a classification

A wrong label is an error like any other, and we treat it as one. If you think something on this site is classified incorrectly — an analysis presented as a primary document, an applicant claim presented as established fact, a question presented as a finding — say so and we will publish the outcome.

• Send it through Corrections & Right of Response, naming the page and the classification you are challenging.
• We review it against the definitions on this page — not against whether the change helps our argument.
• If the classification is wrong we change it, mark the page as corrected, and publish a dated correction. We do not quietly re-label.
• If we disagree, we publish your challenge and our reasons, and you may respond to that.

This applies to anyone, and it applies most strongly to the people and bodies we write about. Ridgeburn Limited, Morven Ferry Limited, Queenstown Lakes District Council, any councillor and any Minister named on this site may use it.

Evidence statement

Classification: Public Statement

Status: A statement by Ridgeburn Press about its own editorial method. It is the definition the rest of the site is measured against, and it is published before the content it governs.

Author: Ridgeburn Press Office

Last reviewed: 16 September 2026

Sources

1. Ridgeburn Press editorial standard, Ridgeburn Press — this page is the source document.

Assumptions

• That every published item carries exactly one classification as its eyebrow and as its first tag. Where the two disagree, the eyebrow is in error.

What is not established

• That any item on this site currently carries the Expert Evidence classification. None does; no expert has been instructed.

Right of response

Ridgeburn Limited, Queenstown Lakes District Council and any person named here may respond in full. How to respond.