Mount Ararat reader research worksheet: keep the evidence

This worksheet helps keep planning notes separate from verified facts. It can be copied into a document or spreadsheet. Completing every field is less important than leaving a visible blank where evidence is missing. The worksheet does not grant access, validate an itinerary or assess personal readiness.

1. Define the question

What exact decision or statement am I researching?
Is it geographic, regulatory, meteorological, logistical or personal?
Which place and date range does it concern?
What would count as a sufficient answer?

Keep one question per record. If it contains several kinds of evidence, split it before continuing.

2. Record the source

Publisher and responsible office.
Page or document title and URL.
Publication date and date checked.
Relevant quotation or data field in your own notes.
Geographic and time scope.

For map work, add layer, scale and legend information from the official map tutorial. For official enquiries, preserve the exact question as well as the answer.

3. Evaluate the result

Mark the row confirmed, partial, conflicting or unknown. Explain the choice in one sentence. A source may be authoritative but outside the right date or jurisdiction. A recent source may still be unsuitable if it is a repost with no clear origin.

4. Set a review trigger

Re-check on a specific date.
Re-check when an official notice changes.
Re-check close to travel.
Ask the competent authority.
Remove the claim if it cannot be supported.

Add the person responsible for the next check. Without an owner, a review date is only a wish.

5. Keep decision and evidence separate

The worksheet can show what is known, but a final decision may also require personal judgement and qualified advice. Do not edit the evidence row to make a preferred plan look certain. Use the fuller research checklist when several sources conflict, and return to map questions or authority questions for unresolved fields.

Keep older entries rather than overwriting them. A dated sequence shows how the evidence changed and why a later decision differs from an earlier one.