01. Source hierarchy
We prioritize primary documentation, published specifications, official advisories, peer-reviewed research, and reproducible technical observations. Secondary commentary can provide context but should not replace original evidence.
02. Evidence and interpretation
Articles should distinguish what a source directly documents from our interpretation. Where evidence is incomplete, disputed, or time-sensitive, uncertainty should be stated plainly.
03. Dates and maintenance
Technical guidance can become outdated. Pages should display a review date, link to primary sources, and be checked when upstream documentation or major security advisories change.
04. Corrections process
Readers should identify the page, the specific statement, and a reliable supporting reference when reporting an error. Substantive corrections should be reflected in the article rather than silently obscured.
05. Independence and scope
Tor Research is an independent educational publication. It is not affiliated with the Tor Project and does not operate, certify, or endorse third-party services.
Research workflow
- Define the question. Separate the user’s search phrase from the factual proposition that needs testing.
- Find primary evidence. Prefer specifications, official documentation, court or regulator records, and directly attributable statements.
- Corroborate. Seek independent sources where a claim is consequential. Repetition across copied pages is not independent confirmation.
- Record uncertainty. Label claims as confirmed, supported but incomplete, disputed, unverified, or not assessable from available evidence.
- Publish with context. Include dates, definitions, scope, and limitations. Avoid turning absence of evidence into evidence of absence.
- Review and correct. Recheck time-sensitive information and make material corrections visible.
Evidence labels used in this publication
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Confirmed | Directly supported by authoritative or primary evidence for the stated scope. |
| Corroborated | Supported by multiple credible sources that are meaningfully independent. |
| Unverified | Claim exists, but available evidence does not establish its accuracy. |
| Disputed | Credible sources conflict or evidence supports materially different interpretations. |
| Not assessed | Outside the scope or not tested by this publication. |
Limits and reproducibility
This static publication does not claim continuous monitoring, forensic access, live marketplace testing, or privileged information. Search results are volatile and personalized. We do not infer operator identity, legitimacy, or current availability from keyword rankings, social posts, screenshots, or copied claims. Any future empirical study should document its collection date, sampling method, inclusion criteria, and limitations.
Methodology is an editorial commitment, not a certification. Last substantive review: 11 November 2026.