Research method
How Serf Blood uses public records, evidence review and clear limits to publish Lower Columbia Basin investment intelligence.
Evidence standard
Method v1.1 is designed to make uncertainty visible, retrieval depth explicit and the next confirmation obvious. It should help a buyer trust the discipline of the work without turning internal testing into a sales claim.
Source and method state
Active public monthly export is connected with the approved August 2026 issue. Public archive remains monthly only, and member weekly export remains behind authorization.
- Public cadence
- Monthly briefing and monthly archive
- Member cadence
- Weekly briefing and weekly archive behind sign in
- Generated
- August 8, 2026
- Fingerprint
- public_monthly_2026_08_first_live_owner_approved
- Boundary
- No internal intelligence records are used as a fallback.
- Method limit
- Historical validation informs review discipline, not accuracy or prediction claims.
Use public records first
Serf Blood starts with named public records that can change an investment read: land use, planning, permits, utilities, public finance, public meetings, business records, employer signals and infrastructure records.
Apply retrieval depth
A single visible item is not enough when the source trail points deeper. The review follows related agendas, exhibits, staff reports, budgets, contracts, financing records and prior meeting history before a record is treated as decision useful.
Review finance and use of proceeds
Public finance records and use of proceeds language are checked when money, incentives, bonds, grants, utility spending or public infrastructure are part of the story. Funding language is separated from proof that a private project is finished or occupied.
Separate fact from analysis
Signals state what the record says. Analysis states what the record may imply for investors. The page should make clear when Serf Blood is reporting a fact, drawing an inference or naming the next record needed for confirmation.
Control false positives
The method looks for records that could make a signal look stronger than it is, including generic regional promotion, recycled project language, vague hiring, old filings, preliminary studies and sources that repeat each other without adding evidence.
Use negative controls
The review also tracks what did not confirm. Missing permits, absent board approvals, quiet capital records, contradictory dates and rejected entity matches remain part of the method because they reduce repeated mistakes.
Weight source reliability
Official records, primary filings and direct public documents carry more weight than summaries, promotion, press language or copied references. Weak sources can start a question, but they do not carry the conclusion by themselves.
Score attention, not certainty
Scores help rank what deserves review. They are not return promises, probability forecasts or claims that an outcome will happen. Score movement must be tied to changed evidence and visible uncertainty.
Use history inside the method
Historical validation is internal method testing. It is used to find where the review needs more depth, better negative controls or stricter claim boundaries. It is not presented as proof that future intelligence will be accurate.
Preserve the publication boundary
Published briefings should say what changed, what the evidence supports, what remains uncertain and what would confirm or weaken the read next. Serf Blood does not publish historical backtest cases as current briefings or marketing proof.