Zemi North, Evidence Intelligence

Published · Dated · Versioned

A method you can inspect before the engagement begins.

The Zemi Method governs how source material is tested and becomes a human-adjudicated finding. It is designed to constrain conclusions to what the available evidence supports.

Record
ZN–M01
Publication
The Zemi Method
Version
1.2 · 2026
Investigative lifecycle / V1.2Seven phases · 0–6
Phase 0
Authority and ScopeMandate · access · conflicts · systems · disclosure limits
Proceed or stop
  1. 01
    FrameQuestion · mode · assumptions · breaking condition
  2. 02
    PreserveArtifacts · provenance · integrity · tool records
  3. 03
    CorroborateIndependent sources · conflicts · completeness
  4. 04
    AnalyzeSequence · competing explanations · assumptions
  5. 05
    AdjudicateKnown · assumed · undetermined
    Human gate
  6. 06
    ReportFinding · support basis · reasoning · limitations
Standing defensibility checkCan another reviewer follow the path from source to conclusion?
Pass
Finding issued
Gap
Return to affected phase
Claim framedEvidence testedFinding bounded

The discipline

Public philosophy. Accountable application.

The method establishes authority and scope, keeps source material distinct from findings, tests claims against materially independent evidence, and requires human adjudication before a finding supports a decision.

Control / Authority

Define the examination boundary.

Record the question, authority, scope, systems, time period, and known limits before interpretation begins.

Control / Separation

Keep evidence distinct from the finding.

Source material, observation, claim, inference, assumption, and human-adjudicated finding remain identifiable throughout the examination.

Control / Adjudication

Require accountable human judgment.

A person evaluates competing explanations, finding strength, limitations, and the conclusion ultimately issued.

Published lifecycle · Version 1.2

Seven phases. One defensible path.

Phases / 0–6

Each phase controls a different failure point. Automation narrows as the work approaches the mandatory human decision gate.

  1. Phase 0
    Precondition / Authority

    Authority and Scope

    Identify the mandate, decision-maker, access, conflicts, excluded systems, disclosure authority, and material limits before evidence work begins.

    Proceed, limit, or stop
  2. Phase 1
    Question / Theory

    Frame

    Define the question, mode of work, assumptions, competing explanations, and the condition that would break the working theory.

    Question bounded
  3. Phase 2
    Evidence / Integrity

    Preserve

    Protect source material, document provenance and completeness, compare material representations, and preserve proportionate AI action and control records where required.

    Integrity maintained
  4. Phase 3
    Sources / Conflict

    Corroborate

    Test claims against sources produced through materially separate evidentiary paths, examine extraction completeness, and treat unresolved conflict as evidence.

    Sources tested
  5. Phase 4
    Reasoning / Alternatives

    Analyze

    Reconstruct the sequence, test competing explanations, and keep execution, control, authorization, intent, and accountability analytically distinct where material.

    Explanations tested
  6. Phase 5
    Mandatory human gate

    Adjudicate

    A person sets the conclusion, records its support basis, and classifies each finding as known, assumed, or undetermined.

    Human decision
  7. Phase 6
    Finding / Communication

    Report

    State each finding, its evidence and support basis, contrary material, reasoning, assumptions, provenance limits, and decision-support boundary.

    Finding traceable
Publication recordZN–M01

The authoritative publication

The Zemi Method

An evidentiary methodology for investigation and assurance
Version
1.2 · 2026
Status
Published
Record
Versioned

ZemiMethod.com is the authoritative home for current versions, companion materials, worked examples, integrity hashes, citations, and archives.

Version note. Version 1.2 is an author clarity and control revision. It defines the evidence-to-finding pathway, strengthens the independence and decision-support boundaries, and adds proportionate AI Action Provenance and Control Provenance requirements. It is not peer reviewed or empirically validated.