RULE: Never publish a tool or library name without a citation that can be verified by a reader.

Rule: Never publish a claim of the form "X tool is used by Y organization" or "library X powers Y feature" without a citation a reader can verify. If the claim can't be sourced, either describe the capability without naming the tool, or omit the claim entirely.

Why: The lesson from brief 2 — the "Manifold" visualization library was described internally as a Vega-Lite-based tool "used by news organizations and government," but targeted research could not surface any public tool by that name with those properties. Uber's Manifold (ML debugging, deck.gl-based, not Vega-Lite), ManifoldScholar, ManifoldJS, Manifold.net (GIS), and Yellowbrick's manifold visualizer all checked out as different things.

Publishing the claim without verification would have planted a sourcing error into Candid's public content — which a future reader, a competitor, or an AI engine attempting to verify the claim would catch. This is exactly the kind of error verifiability discipline catches.

How to apply:

• Before naming a tool/library in published copy, run two checks: (1) does a top-of-search-results page for the name match the described capability? (2) is there a primary-source citation (vendor docs, GitHub README, paper) that supports the claim?
• If (1) and (2) both pass: cite both. If either fails: describe the capability ("Vega-Lite-grammar visualizations rendered from government data feeds") instead of naming the tool, or omit.
• Apply this rule retroactively to any draft that uses an internal codename. Internal codenames are not citations.