Contributing

The review bar

Every pull request is reviewed against these acceptance criteria (they are the repo's source-hygiene rules, not suggestions):

1. Dated sources. Every claim carries a dated source link. Primary sources preferred: vendor documentation, engineering blogs, regulator texts, named analyst reports.
2. Vendor claims flagged. Numbers published by a vendor about its own product are explicitly labeled vendor-published.
3. As-of dates on volatile facts. Pricing, GA status, and product names carry an as-of date.
4. Simplest credible alternative test. A recommendation must beat the simplest credible alternative on evidence and enterprise economics. "Everyone uses X" is not evidence.
5. Style. No em dashes. Plain, factual statements. Terms used as defined in GLOSSARY.md.
6. Track structure respected. Changes to a research track keep the template sections intact, including Cross-Cutting Concerns (C1 to C10) and Challenged Defaults.

What to contribute

• Corrections: factual errors, stale product facts, broken sources. Fastest to merge.
• Research gaps: evidence that a track missed something material. Open an issue first.
• Production techniques: patterns you have run in production, with economics (before/after cost, scale, failure modes). These go to techniques/ using the format in that directory's README.
• Vendor intelligence: additions to a track's vendors.md with sources.
• Challenges: disagree with a published conclusion? Open an issue with your evidence. Contested points get additional research; disagreements resolve on technical reality and economics.

Workflow

1. For anything larger than a correction, open an issue (templates provided) or start a Discussion first
2. Fork, branch (rNN/short-topic for track work), make your change
3. Open a PR using the template; complete the checklist honestly
4. The maintainer (@muralisidfn7) reviews against the bar above and merges

What not to submit

• Third-party copyrighted material (decks, slide images, paywalled text). Cite and summarize instead.
• Vendor marketing repackaged as findings.
• Confidential information from any employer or client.

Code of conduct

See CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md. In short: argue about evidence, never about people.

---

Source: CONTRIBUTING.md in the evidence repository behind this site.