Five reports, one origin

Briefing

Everything in this pack is fictional: the incident, people, places, police organisation, outlets and articles. No external searching is needed. The article labels are references within this page, not links to real publications.

You edit a small news desk. A colleague says, “Five reports confirm the death, the date and a robbery motive.” Before publishing, trace the claims back to the people who supplied them.

This is about origins, not how many websites repeat a sentence. It builds on Exercise 004, which checks a report against sources, and Exercise 005, which tests links between events.

Your working rubric

For this exercise, give source reliability and claim credibility separately. These are teaching rules adapted for this pack, not probabilities or a complete intelligence standard.

Source reliability: use F, cannot be judged, when the pack supplies no checked track record for an origin. Every origin here starts at F. An official title does not create a documented track record.

Claim credibility:

• 1: two explicitly independent, first-hand origins support the claim at the stated precision.
• 2: one attributed origin is in a position to know and states the claim plainly, without a competing version in this pack.
• 3: the claim is hedged, or stated without an identifiable origin, and not contradicted here.
• 4: comparable accounts disagree; record both without choosing a winner.
• 5: a better-placed origin or an explicit correction contradicts the claim. No such correction is supplied in this pack.
• 6: the claim is not reported or is explicitly undetermined.

A motive is an inference: it cannot receive 1 in this exercise. An outlet’s repetition adds no origin. A limited confirmation supports only what that person actually confirms.

The five articles

Article A: Eastbank Bulletin, 15 October 2026, 09:00

One person dies at a storage yard

Northmere Police spokesperson Captain Imani Vale said officers attended a storage yard in the fictional town of Eastbank at 22:10 on 14 October. Officers found one person dead, with gunshot wounds. Vale said the precise time of the shooting had not been established. “The motive is under investigation. No arrests have been made as of this statement,” Vale said. The Bulletin quotes police statement NP-14 and reports no separate witness interview.

Article B: Valley Wire, 15 October 2026, 11:00

Police investigate yard death

One person was found dead with gunshot wounds at an Eastbank storage yard after police attended at 22:10 on 14 October, Northmere Police said in statement NP-14. The motive remains under investigation and no arrests had been made when the statement was issued. This item was prepared from that statement; the Wire did not attend the scene or interview witnesses.

Article C: Morning Ledger, 16 October 2026, 08:00

Robbery behind yard killing, reports suggest

According to the Eastbank Bulletin, police attended an Eastbank yard at 22:10 on 14 October and found one person dead with gunshot wounds. The killing is believed to have followed a robbery. The Ledger gives no origin, interview, document or other basis for the robbery sentence. It did not contact police. The headline and sentence are not attributed to Vale.

Article D: Eastbank Community Desk, 16 October 2026, 12:00

Yard custodian describes discovery

Custodian Mara Fen said, “I found one person dead inside the storage yard. I checked for signs of life myself before officers arrived. I entered it in my shift diary as 15 October, shortly after midnight. I did not see the shooting and I do not know why it happened.” The reporter interviewed Fen directly. Fen said she had not read statement NP-14 or spoken to Vale about its account. The reporter did not obtain the diary. Fen did not identify a weapon, a suspect or a street address. This is a separate first-hand account of the discovery, not of the attack.

Article E: District Observer, 17 October 2026, 14:00

Family confirms death; investigation continues

A relative, Sol Fenwick, said, “The officer who phoned us said a person had died at the yard. We have not attended the scene or viewed the body.” The Observer then repeats Vale’s NP-14 statement, including the 14 October attendance date and the statement-time no-arrests position. It obtained no newer arrest update and gives no medical record or family confirmation of the cause of death.

Tasks

1. Draw the origin chain for each article. Which contains a new first-hand origin, which repeats an origin, and which introduces an unsupported inference?
2. Grade these six claims using the working rubric, recording the source grade separately: one person died; the discovery occurred on 14 October; the place was an Eastbank storage yard; the person was found with gunshot wounds; robbery was the motive; no arrests had been made when NP-14 was issued.
3. Explain why the 22:10 police attendance time is not an established shooting time. Can the pack support a particular street address?
4. Your colleague calls the death “confirmed by five independent sources” and the robbery motive “police-confirmed”. Rewrite both statements without overstating the evidence.
5. If asked for the established motive, rather than the reported robbery speculation, what grade is justified? Write a short publication note that retains the date conflict and does not turn a historical arrest statement into a current update.

Hints

Hint 1

Follow each arrow all the way back. A, B and part of E end at NP-14. An additional relative is not automatically an additional first-hand origin.

Hint 2

D independently supports a discovery and a death, but not the shooting, motive or police attendance date. Compare the precision of each claim before counting corroboration.

Solution

Solution (spoiler)

Origin map

• A: Bulletin to NP-14 to Vale’s police account.
• B: Wire to the same NP-14 account. A second outlet, not another origin.
• C: Ledger to Bulletin to NP-14 for the discovery details. Its robbery sentence has no traceable origin; it must not be attributed to police.
• D: Community Desk to its own direct interview with custodian Fen. The pack explicitly establishes a separate first-hand discovery account. It does not establish that Fen witnessed the attack.
• E: Observer to NP-14, plus Fenwick relaying a police phone call. The relative has no stated first-hand access, so this is not independent confirmation of death or mechanism.

Six claims

Every origin receives F for source reliability because no checked track record is provided. Do not grade an outlet’s reputation instead of the origin.

Claim	Credibility	Basis and limit
One person died	1	Police found one dead; the separately interviewed custodian describes personally finding one dead. Two independent first-hand origins at this precision.
Discovery occurred on 14 October	4	Police place their discovery on 14 October; the custodian places hers after midnight on 15 October. With no diary or correction supplied, preserve the conflict.
Eastbank storage yard	1	Both first-hand accounts identify the town and yard. No street-level corroboration is claimed.
Found with gunshot wounds	2	Police state this plainly. The custodian did not describe wounds or the attack. No second first-hand origin for this claim.
Robbery was the motive	3	C offers hedged speculation with no stated origin. Police say the motive is undetermined, not that robbery has been confirmed.
No arrests when NP-14 was issued	2	The police statement supplies an attributed position as of issuance. Repetition is not a later update.

The two date accounts might be explained by a mistake, but the pack does not establish which one. Do not invent a correction. Discovery and police attendance are also different events; here the chronology is inconsistent because Fen places her earlier discovery after the stated police discovery. Preserve that discrepancy rather than treating the different times alone as proof of error.

Precision and publication wording

22:10 is the police attendance time, not an observed shooting time. The pack supplies neither the exact attack time nor a street address. Those separate claims receive 6, not a guessed value.

Replace “five independent sources” with “two separate first-hand accounts support the death; several articles repeat one police statement.” Replace “police-confirmed robbery” with “one outlet speculates about robbery without naming an origin; police say the motive is under investigation.”

For the established motive, the answer is F6: the origins’ reliability has no documented record, and the actual motive cannot be judged from this pack. This does not contradict assigning 3 to C’s specifically reported robbery speculation. Those are different claims.

Sample publication note: One person was found dead at an Eastbank storage yard, according to police and a separately interviewed custodian. Police describe gunshot wounds. The accounts disagree on the discovery date: police place it on 14 October, the custodian after midnight on 15 October. Police said no arrests had been made when NP-14 was issued; the pack supplies no newer update. The motive and shooting time remain undetermined. One outlet’s robbery suggestion has no identified origin.

Scoring

Ten points, suggested pass at seven:

• Origin map, three points: shared NP-14 chain; independent but limited D; second-hand E and unsupported C.
• Claim table, three points: one for each two correct rows, with attribution and precision, accepting argued alternatives that explicitly identify a genuine ambiguity.
• Precision, one point: attendance is not shooting time, and no street address is supplied.
• Corrected wording, one point: neither five independent origins nor police-confirmed robbery.
• Final note, two points: one for unresolved date and historical arrest limits, one for F6 on the established motive without calling F “false”.

Debrief

A source can have an unknown track record while a particular claim is independently supported. Another claim from that same source can remain uncorroborated. Count origins per fact, retain the time and precision of each statement, and let “cannot be judged” be an answer.

The companion case study, Five reports can still be one account, shows why this distinction changed the FORGE drawer.