Not every UAP source is the same kind of source. This site sorts every claim and document it publishes into one of four tiers. The tier is shown on the briefing or note where the claim appears, so you can see at a glance what kind of source you are reading.
The tier rates the source, not the truth of the claim. A primary document can still be mistaken. A rumour can still turn out to be right. What you make of the source is up to you; the tier just makes sure you know what it is.
A scope note: the tiers below apply to the UAP record. The simulations carry their own status labels, Established, Theoretical and Phenomenon, which rate how settled the physics is, not the source.
T1, firsthand and on the record
A named person describing what they personally saw, did, or were told, under their own name. Example: a pilot's own signed account of an encounter.
T2, primary document
An official record from a government, military, contractor or agency. Example: a PURSUE mission report, or a State Department cable.
T3, secondhand or relayed
An account at one remove: an insider claim passed through a journalist or filmmaker, or a witness relaying what someone else told them. Example: the Dan Farah claims note.
T4, unverified claim or rumour
A claim with no supporting document and no named firsthand source behind it.
How this site applies the tiers
The tier is a label, not a verdict. Every claim is presented the same way regardless of tier, summarised faithfully and attributed; the tier is there so you can decide how much weight to give it. Where a briefing rests on a mix of tiers, the briefing says so.
A note on Topics
Topic pages synthesise across many sources, so a single tier necessarily flattens the variation on the page. On Topic pages only, the tier reflects the strongest evidence the page's central claims rest on, and an optional source profile note next to the tier names the page's source breadth: foundational, multi-source, mixed, or single-source. The tier always rates the source, not the verdict.