The Personal Provenance Protocol 2.3A.1-1

The Three-Question Habit

The Personal Provenance Protocol reduces epistemic integrity to a practiced habit — three questions applied before acting on any claim that might influence a significant decision.

Question 1 — Channel: Where did I encounter this claim? Was it a primary source, a curated feed, a secondhand report, a social share, a headline without an article? The channel determines how much context has been stripped. A claim encountered through algorithmic curation has been selected for engagement, not accuracy. A claim encountered through a trusted professional contact has been filtered by that person's judgment — which may be sound, but is not the same as your own verification.

Question 2 — Source: Where did the claim originate? Not where you found it — where it was produced. A news article may cite a study, which may cite a dataset, which may have been funded by a party with a stake in the outcome. Tracing the provenance chain from your point of encounter back to the originating source reveals how many intermediaries have handled the claim — and each intermediary is a potential point of distortion, simplification, or editorial shaping.

Question 3 — Basis: What evidence supports the claim? Not whether you believe the evidence — but whether you can identify it. A claim supported by a peer-reviewed study occupies a different epistemic position than a claim supported by an anecdote, an appeal to authority, or nothing at all. The basis question does not require you to evaluate the evidence in detail for every claim. It requires you to notice when evidence is absent — and to adjust your confidence accordingly.

Applying the Protocol

The protocol is scaled by stakes. For low-stakes claims — a weather forecast, a product recommendation, a scheduling suggestion — the three questions may take seconds and need not produce written answers. For high-stakes claims — a medical decision, a financial commitment, a character assessment, a political position — the protocol warrants written provenance notes: a brief record of the channel, source, and basis, stored in whatever system the reader uses for decision documentation.

The protocol does not demand certainty. It demands awareness of uncertainty. A claim whose provenance you have traced and whose basis you have identified may still be wrong — but you know what you are working with. A claim whose provenance you have never examined is operating inside your decision architecture as an unaudited input. The protocol converts unaudited inputs into managed ones.

The integration with Arc 2's weekly review (2.2.1) is direct: the provenance notes become inputs to the review's "Update" step. Claims whose basis has changed since the last review are flagged for revision. Claims whose provenance has been questioned by new information are flagged for re-examination. The protocol feeds the review; the review closes the loop.

The Failure Modes

The Personal Provenance Protocol has two characteristic failure modes, and recognizing them is part of the practice.

The first is provenance theater — performing the three questions without actually adjusting behavior based on the answers. If the protocol never produces a moment of revised confidence, paused action, or abandoned commitment, it is theater. The test: in the last month, has the protocol caused you to change your mind about something, slow down a decision, or seek additional evidence? If not, you are performing the habit without practicing the discipline.

The second is provenance paralysis — using the demand for perfect provenance as an excuse for inaction. Not every claim requires a full provenance trace. Not every decision must wait for independently verified evidence. The protocol is a calibration tool, not a permission gate. Act on the best available evidence, note the assumptions, set a review date, and commit to updating. This is the same antidote to paralysis that Arc 2's fallibilism already provides (2.2.1) — now applied to the specific domain of information intake.