Main idea

Two setups resemble each other to the point of being mistaken for one another: both produce atomic notes linked together. Their nature differs nonetheless, and an example shows it faster than a definition — "here is what standard NF X 60-010 says about preventive maintenance" against "this standard is poorly applied in that workshop, and here is why".

A base of facts is oriented toward proximity. Its information is factual and unslanted; its quality is measured by its fidelity to the original text, and a note is good there when it restates without adding.

A personal system of thought is oriented toward links. It carries experiences, intuitions, theses; its quality is measured by what it brings to light, and a note is good there when it takes a position.

The first supplies the material the second interprets. Neither follows from the other: piling up facts does not produce a thesis, and sharpening your theses does not replace knowing the text.

Why it matters

This heads off the charge of redundancy, which usually leads to merging the two and losing both: a neutral base polluted with opinions stops being quotable, a system of thought drowned in definitions stops thinking.

Above all it gives an immediate filing rule at the moment of writing: what can be verified in a reference text goes on one side, what commits only the person writing it goes on the other.

Nuances and limits

The border is sharp on a standard and blurry everywhere else. A "best practice" is already a position, and filing it as a fact passes a collective opinion off as a prescription.

And the base's neutrality is relative: the extraction rules chose what deserved to be kept. A base of facts is not without a point of view, it merely has a point of view that no note takes responsibility for.

Open questions

• In a lightly standardized field, what stands in for a reference text when deciding what counts as a fact?