How should source freshness be measured in Philippines content research?

Research question: for a defined set of planned article claims, does the source packet contain evidence current enough for the stated publication decision? Freshness is claim-dependent; it cannot be reduced to the age of a URL.

Classify claims as time-sensitive product behavior, policy, legal text, market statistic, company practice, or stable background. Define a review trigger for each class before sampling. Save publisher, version or effective date, retrieval date, and relevant section.

Select a consecutive sample of source-to-claim mappings. Reopen the source and test whether it remains accessible, authoritative for the stated scope, and consistent with the planned wording. Record superseding and conflicting sources without choosing between them silently.

A Philippines researcher may retrieve records, compare versions, and prepare conflict notes. Legal interpretation, company policy, product promises, and acceptance of stale evidence remain with their authorized owners.

Report stale mappings, unsupported mappings, inaccessible sources, and false alarms separately. A changed page may not affect the cited fact, while an unchanged page can still be inadequate because the original scope was misunderstood.

Limitations include absent version history, dynamic pages, regional access, and sources that change without notices. A second reviewer should reproduce a sample from the saved mapping and declared rules.

Evidence-led conclusion: freshness control is strongest when attached to individual claims and change triggers. The study can improve review scheduling for this workflow but cannot certify the continuing accuracy of an external publisher.