1. report-data.json

   : Standardized claims, sources, conclusions, packaging patterns, timelines, and limitations.
2. Self-contained

   report.html

   : No external styles, scripts, fonts, or images are referenced.

3. report.pdf

   consistent with the same data model.
4. A short conversation summary: Prioritize stating the strongest supporting evidence, direct contradictions, and unresolved gaps.

scripts/render_report.py

scripts/validate_report.py

• Only use public information directly relevant to the task. Do not collect addresses, phone numbers, family members, account credentials, private messages, or irrelevant personal information.
• Screenshots, accusation articles, anonymous comments, and the candidate's own homepage only prove "someone said this", and cannot automatically become independent evidence.
• Use precise statements such as "Public evidence only supports contributor status, not core author status", and avoid personality labels like "liar", "pest", or "fraudster".
• Mark as

  contradicted

  only when reliable evidence directly conflicts with the claim; otherwise, use

  unsupported

  ,

  partially_corroborated

  , or

  unverifiable

  .
• Initiating issues, contributing to front-end/documentation, building relationships with maintainers, or obtaining formal community status as a result is not improper behavior. What needs to be verified is whether the resume accurately describes formal roles, technical depth, and personal contributions.
• Do not infer integrity based on school rankings or the informal label "double non-first-class". "Double non-first-class" is an informal label and not evidence of fraud. Verify the institution, program, student status, and degree-granting body.
• Inferences about gender, appearance, personality, taxes, or motives are usually irrelevant to resume authenticity; exclude them unless authoritative evidence proves a direct connection to a resume claim.
• Important evidence favorable to the party must be presented equally with unfavorable evidence.

references/evidence-methodology.md

• Resume PDF or screenshots;
• Articles and social media posts;
• Links to code repositories and personal homepages;
• Web archives;
• Employment, school, award, or paid community background provided by the user.

S-001

S-002

• official_record

  : Official records;

• repository_record

  : Code repository records;

• candidate_self_statement

  : Candidate's self-statement;

• user_provided_document

  : User-provided materials;

• media_or_commentary

  : Media or commentary articles;

• anonymous_or_unverified

  : Anonymous or unverified sources.

"As core author, led the project from version 1.0 to 2.0, improving performance by 25%."

1. The candidate is formally or de facto a core author.
2. The candidate led the migration from 1.0 to 2.0.
3. Performance metrics did improve by 25%.
4. The improvement was caused by or substantially contributed to by the candidate's work.

• Original resume text;
• Standardized claim;
• Claim category;
• Timeframe;
• Organization or project;
• Implied role and responsibility scope;
• Evidence required for verification.

references/report-schema.md

• Recalculate conversion rates, growth rates, and proportions;
• Compare dates in resumes, homepages, offers, and posts;
• Mark overlapping full-time or internship periods;
• Compare role levels used on different platforms;
• Identify superlatives like "youngest, first, core" without a clear comparison scope;
• Distinguish between overall project metrics and individual impact metrics;
• Check for claimed causality without a baseline or control group.

"metric": {
  "numerator": 200,
  "denominator": 2000,
  "displayed_percent": 10
}

baseline

result

change_type

displayed_change

metric

relative_percent

(result - baseline) / baseline * 100

25%

percentage_points

10

10%

references/open-source-audit.md

• Author PR and issue search;
• Differences between merged, closed-unmerged, open, duplicate, and superseded;
• Modified files, code ownership, review records, and release notes;
• README acknowledgments, maintainer lists, CODEOWNERS, organization members, and formal appointments;
• Contribution types: core engine, features, bug fixes, front-end, website, documentation, testing, generated code, comments, or only issues;
• Relationship between contribution time and the claimed version/architecture phase;
• Whether star count, ranking, adoption rate, and project success predated the candidate's contributions.

unverifiable

owner

0-to-1

core author

architect

lead

• Who granted or assigned this role?
• Which subsystem was actually responsible for?
• Which decisions were proposed by the candidate?
• Which products passed review and entered production?
• Which results can be attributed to the individual rather than the team?

references/education-branding-audit.md

• Institution where admission and enrollment were granted;
• Actual campus or program attended;
• Overseas partner institution;
• Exchange or visiting status;
• Status of the Sino-foreign cooperative program;
• Degree-granting institution;
• Final degree, diploma, or certificate obtained.

references/inflation-patterns.md

• Inflating contributor to maintainer/core author;
• Presenting website or documentation contributions as core engine depth;
• Transferring project stars, brand, and ranking to the individual;
• Using social or visibility work to imply technical authority;
• Reciting complete system architecture instead of proving personal outputs;
• Attributing team results and adoption rates to the individual;
• Denominator switching and pseudo-precise metrics;
• Repeating self-assigned titles across multiple own platforms;
• Presenting cooperative schools or overseas programs as the main degree-granting body;
• Time compression and repeated

  owner/0-to-1

  statements.

• corroborated

  : Strong independent evidence supports the key content of the claim.

• partially_corroborated

  : The fact is true, but the role, scope, causality, or magnitude exceeds the evidence.

• contradicted

  : Reliable evidence directly conflicts with the claim.

• unsupported

  : Insufficient evidence remains after reasonable search.

• unverifiable

  : Only currently unavailable internal or private records can verify the claim.

high

medium

low

report-data.json

references/report-schema.md

The article author alleges...; original screenshots are missing from current materials, and independent verification has not been completed.

The party forged...

python3 scripts/render_report.py \
  --input /absolute/path/report-data.json \
  --html /absolute/path/report.html \
  --pdf /absolute/path/report.pdf

1. Scope and limitations;
2. Evidence status cards;
3. Investigation flow chart;
4. Highest-risk claims;
5. Complete claim-evidence matrix;
6. Packaging patterns and counter-evidence;
7. Timeline;
8. Sources and next verification steps.

• Strongest confirmed facts;
• Strongest direct contradictions;
• Largest unverifiable gaps.

literal fiction

role/scope inflation

unsupported marketing statements

merely lack of evidence

• references/evidence-methodology.md

  : Source hierarchy and status judgment rules.

• references/open-source-audit.md

  : GitHub/Apache contribution and role audit.

• references/education-branding-audit.md

  : Institution, Sino-foreign cooperation, exchange, and degree representation.

• references/inflation-patterns.md

  : Defensive resume packaging classification.

• references/report-schema.md

  : JSON format read by the report generator.

• references/asu-case-study.md

  : Limited case study based on public records and user materials; do not treat it as eternal or comprehensive fact.

• scripts/render_report.py

  : Deterministic HTML/PDF generator.

• scripts/validate_report.py

  : Data structure, evidence reference, HTML, and PDF smoke check.

• assets/report_template.html

  : Self-contained Chinese HTML report template.

• evals/evals.json

  : Chinese test tasks and expected behavior.