The 9-Point Evidence Integrity Standard
A field-tested code of evidence conduct for the working paranormal investigator, drafted in 2009, revised three times since, and now referenced by fourteen U.S.-based investigation teams.
Every post published on PJ Star Forums is reviewed against this Standard by one of forty-two trained volunteer section leads before it reaches the public feed. Average review turnaround on flagged submissions: 4.7 hours.
Why the Standard Was Drafted
In early 2009, the forum's founder Maria Vance circulated a three-page memorandum to the then-eight volunteer section leads. The memo opened with a single complaint: too many case threads were arriving as eyewitness narrative with no environmental baseline, no instrument logs, and no clear separation between the investigator's interpretation and the observed event. By the end of that year the memorandum had grown into the first version of the Standard — a nine-point checklist that any submitted thread had to clear before publication.
The Standard was not conceived as a house style guide. It was conceived as a defense against the forum's most persistent failure mode: the slow, contagious drift toward anecdote. Before 2009, a thread claiming "cold spots" on a residential staircase could be posted with no baseline thermometer reading, no time-stamp, no floor plan, and no investigator handle willing to defend the methodology. After the Standard took effect, that same thread would be returned to its author with a moderator note pointing to Criterion 4 (Environmental Baseline) and Criterion 7 (Instrument Log).
Three revisions have followed. The 2013 revision added a dedicated criterion for skeptical rebuttal. The 2018 revision split the original "Evidence" point into two: one for raw capture, one for chain-of-custody. The 2022 revision, drafted in consultation with fourteen external teams, tightened the language around anomalous-claim retraction. Each revision has been archived as a numbered addendum and remains available in the public record.
— Filed from the editorial office, Peoria, Illinois.
The Nine Criteria, in Full
Each criterion is presented with its one-sentence definition, a short compliant-posting example, and a short non-compliant example that a moderator would return with revision notes.
-
01
Investigator Identity
Every post must carry the real name or persistent handle of at least one investigator willing to be contacted for follow-up.
Compliant"Submitted by R. Calderón, MIST-ID 4412. Field log attached. Open to direct questions in the thread or by DM."
Returned"Posted from a brand-new account, no prior case history, no contact channel listed."
-
02
Location Disclosure
The investigation site must be named to a reasonable specificity, with owner consent noted where applicable.
Compliant"Springfield State Hospital, second-floor ward (with written owner consent on file, ref. #SSH-2024-118)."
Returned"An old asylum somewhere in the Midwest" — no consent disclosure, no address for verification.
-
03
Date, Time, and Duration
Each post must include the calendar date, start time, and total duration of the investigation session.
Compliant"Session 22 Sept 2024, 23:14–02:48 CST (3 hrs 34 min). Sunrise at 06:51."
Returned"We were there last weekend" — no date, no duration, no timezone.
-
04
Environmental Baseline
Any claimed anomaly must be paired with a measured or observed baseline of the same variable.
Compliant"Ambient temperature logged at 12.4°C over 90 minutes prior to event; during event, sensor dropped to 7.1°C over 41 seconds."
Returned"It got really cold all of a sudden" — no thermometer reading, no baseline window.
-
05
Raw Capture
Audio, video, and photographic evidence must be uploaded as the unmodified original file or with a documented edit log.
Compliant"EVP-2024-0312-A.wav attached, original 4-channel Zoom F3 capture, no post-processing."
Returned"Listen closely to this — you'll hear it at 0:14" — but the uploaded clip has been normalized and trimmed with no log.
-
06
Chain of Custody
Every piece of captured evidence must be traceable from the moment of capture to the moment of upload, with hash or signature noted where possible.
Compliant"SHA-256 of original WAV: a4f3…d812. Card was not removed from device until file was sealed and hashed at base."
Returned"My phone recorded this and I forwarded it from a friend's laptop" — no custody trail.
-
07
Instrument Log
The make, model, calibration date, and configuration of every instrument used must be listed in the post or attached as a session log.
Compliant"Kestrel 5500, last cal. 02 Aug 2024; REM-Gen REM-Pod-2B set to threshold 3.4 mG; 4K Sony A7IV, 24mm, f/2.8."
Returned"We had a bunch of equipment" — no model numbers, no calibration.
-
08
Skeptical Rebuttal
The posting investigator must name at least one mundane explanation that was considered and either ruled out or acknowledged.
Compliant"Drafts and HVAC cycling considered: HVAC was off for 90 minutes prior, hallway door closed, no nearby foot traffic."
Returned"Nothing else could explain it" — no mundane hypothesis enumerated.
-
09
Claim Retraction
If, after publication, evidence is shown to be erroneous or fabricated, the original investigator must post a numbered retraction referencing the same Standard.
Compliant"Retraction of thread #C-44128. Re-analysis of EVP-2024-0312-A revealed water-pipe artifact. Original claim withdrawn per Criterion 9."
Returned"Deleting the thread, sorry guys" — no retraction notice, no audit trail.
A Field Reference, Not a House Style
Fourteen U.S.-based investigation teams and three periodicals of record now cite the 9-Point Standard as a reference framework. Listed here by year of first adoption.
Adopting Teams (14)
- 2014Great Lakes Paranormal Society
- 2015Mid-Atlantic Hauntology Project
- 2016Heartland EVP Cooperative
- 2017Pacific Northwest Field Guild
- 2018Carolina Cemetery Vigil Network
- 2019Texas Triangle Investigators
- 2020New England Residential Cases Team
- 2021Rocky Mountain Anomaly Group
- 2021Florida Coastal Haunt Survey
- 2022Great Plains Skeptics & Investigators
- 2022Southwest Desert Vigil Coalition
- 2023Hudson Valley Historic Sites Team
- 2023Ohio River Valley Field Unit
- 2024Upper Midwest Threshold Group
Periodicals of Record
- 2021Atlas Obscura — "11 Essential Paranormal Communities"
- 2022Skeptical Inquirer — March 2022 cover feature
- 2023Fortean Times — Issue 412 methodology column
How the Standard Is Enforced
The Standard is not aspirational. Every case thread passes through a four-stage review pipeline before it reaches the public feed. The pipeline is operated by forty-two trained volunteer section leads and audited monthly.
-
01
Submission
Investigator composes the thread in the appropriate sub-forum and tags it for review. A preliminary auto-check flags missing fields (location, date, instrument log) before a human sees it.
-
02
Triage
A section lead assigns the thread to one of three queues: Routine (under 200 words of metadata), Detailed (multi-instrument session), or Sensitive (residential claim, client name attached).
-
03
9-Point Check
The reviewer walks the post against each of the nine criteria. Any failure is logged with a numbered revision note citing the specific point. Pass-or-revise is decided here.
-
04
Publish or Revise
Passing threads go live with a "Reviewed under Standard v.2022" tag. Failing threads return to the author with the moderator's notes; the author may revise and resubmit without losing thread position.
Practical Questions, Answered
The questions below are the ones posted investigators most often ask the editorial office before their first submission. Answers reflect current practice under the 2022 revision.
How long does review take from submission to publication?
Across all three queues, the average total dwell time is 4.7 hours. Routine threads typically clear in under two hours; Detailed threads, with multi-instrument logs and raw captures, can take six to ten hours because the reviewer verifies file hashes and reads instrument calibration dates. Sensitive threads are reviewed within twenty-four hours by a designated senior lead.
What triggers a post rejection versus a revision request?
A revision request is issued when a thread fails one or two of the nine criteria and can be brought into compliance with minor edits — for example, an omitted calibration date or a missing baseline reading. A rejection is issued only when the thread fails four or more criteria, when the claimed anomaly cannot be paired with any baseline, or when the chain of custody for the raw capture cannot be established. Rejections are logged with a numbered explanation and may be appealed.
Can a revision decision be appealed, and how are revisions tracked?
Yes. The posting investigator may reply to the moderator's notes with additional context, supporting evidence, or a clarification of the original claim. The thread is then re-queued for a second reviewer — never the same lead who issued the revision — and the decision is logged in the thread's audit panel. Every revision, approval, and rejection carries a timestamped entry referencing the specific Standard point at issue.
How does the Standard treat skeptical rebuttals posted after publication?
Skeptical rebuttals are welcomed and are themselves reviewed under the Standard before they appear in the thread. A rebuttal that produces new baseline data, identifies a mundane explanation that satisfies Criterion 8, or surfaces an error in the original post is eligible to trigger a Claim Retraction under Criterion 9. The original investigator is then asked to post a numbered retraction; if they decline, the rebuttal remains visible in the thread with a "Contested" tag so that future readers see both the claim and its challenge.
Ready to submit a case against the Standard?
Join the Investigation