Four questions are reviewed separately
| Question | What is being established |
|---|---|
| Identity | Does the evidence connect the exact hostname to the claimed operator? |
| Operation | Did the service respond during a limited observation, and when? |
| Purpose | Does the service fit the public-interest directory scope? |
| Maintenance | Can the record be rechecked, corrected, and responsibly retained? |
A strong answer to one question does not substitute for another. A service may be online but not owner-confirmed. It may be owner-confirmed but outside the publication’s scope.
Stage 1: Define the claim
Write down the exact proposition being tested. Examples include “this newsroom controls this onion hostname,” “this address replaced an older one,” or “this service fits the public-interest scope.” A vague goal such as “verify the site” hides several separate decisions.
Stage 2: Collect first-party evidence
- the operator’s established clearnet domain;
- the page where that operator publishes the address;
- the exact 56-character hostname;
- the announcement or update date;
- organization name and stated purpose;
- contact or correction route;
- known previous addresses;
- maintenance or security warnings.
A screenshot can supplement the record, but it does not replace the source URL, date, and preserved text.
Stage 3: Assess identity
Confirm that the clearnet source belongs to the claimed operator and compare every character of the onion hostname. Evidence from a copied directory does not establish ownership, even when several copies repeat the same address.
| Identity label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Owner-confirmed | The operator publishes the exact address through an established first-party channel |
| Cross-checked | Several credible sources agree, but the first-party chain is incomplete |
| Unverified | The available evidence is insufficient |
| Contradicted | Reliable evidence conflicts with the claim |
Stage 4: Observe operation
Where appropriate, an editor may note whether the address responded through Tor Browser. The observation is limited to availability and visible identity signals. It does not involve accounts, transactions, payments, downloads, or tests of commercial claims.
| Operation label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Online when checked | Responded at the recorded time |
| Intermittent | Results differed across reasonable checks |
| Offline | Did not respond during the documented check |
| Changed or replaced | A supported migration or replacement was found |
| Not checked | No operational observation was made |
Stage 5: Assess editorial suitability
Ownership evidence does not require publication. The service must serve a clear public-interest purpose and must not introduce disproportionate harm. Anonymous markets, illegal commerce, paid listings, affiliate placements, and services supported only by copied directories are excluded.
Stage 6: Create the record
- service and organization name;
- neutral purpose summary;
- official clearnet source;
- onion hostname;
- identity-evidence label;
- first documented date;
- last reviewed date;
- operational observation;
- languages and limitations;
- correction route and change history.
Review triggers
A record should be reviewed after an operator announcement, credible clone report, extended outage, change in the clearnet source, correction request, material purpose change, or normal editorial review reminder. The publication should not promise an interval it cannot maintain.
Removal or historical treatment
- Move an address to history when a supported replacement exists.
- Remove a record when ownership evidence is withdrawn or contradicted.
- Remove it when the purpose no longer fits the scope.
- Remove it when the record cannot be maintained responsibly.
- Document a material correction instead of silently changing identity or status.
Evidence retention and minimization
Keep enough information to reproduce the decision, but do not retain credentials, private keys, payment data, victim information, illegal imagery, or unnecessary personal data. Record facts about the source rather than collecting more material than the review requires.
Quality-control review
- A second editor checks the source and hostname where practicable.
- The title and summary are checked for promotional language.
- The identity and operation labels are checked independently.
- Internal links, external sources, and dates are tested.
- The record is previewed before publication.
- The change is noted in the update log when material.