ANL-4.5-001supported in current verified subsetConfidence: moderate
Long-arm descriptions cross the historical/modern boundary
Question: Do source-verified records in both research cohorts contain explicit descriptions of unusually long arms?
Method: Presence/absence review of exact-locator-backed observations only; no cohort prevalence estimate.
Supporting records
- William Roe — Early affidavit reproduction describes arms as thicker and longer than a man's, reaching almost to the knees. (LOC-0001)
- Todd Neiss — 2007 firsthand account describes arms extending well past the knees. (LOC-0002)
- Kerry Arnold — Firsthand interview includes long arms / massive forearms. (LOC-0012 / LOC-0013)
Counterevidence / limitation: The current exact-locator subset was selected partly for high-value morphology and is not a representative sample. Absence of a trait from a source is not evidence the witness denied it.
Current conclusion: The trait is demonstrably present in source-linked records from both eras. The current archive does not justify a claim about how common the trait is in either cohort.
ANL-4.5-002supported in current verified subsetConfidence: moderate
Little/no visible neck recurs in independently sourced accounts
Question: Does the 'little/no neck' description occur in more than one independently sourced witness record?
Method: Compare explicit source language/normalized observations; do not infer anatomy beyond the witness description.
Supporting records
- William Roe — Early account includes a short/thick neck description. (LOC-0001)
- Todd Neiss — 2007 account says no visible neck. (LOC-0002)
- Kevin Frankenfield — Provider transcript segment includes no visible neck. (LOC-0016)
Counterevidence / limitation: These descriptions are not anatomically identical, and cultural familiarity with the Bigfoot image is a possible contamination variable in later cases.
Current conclusion: A reduced/obscured-neck description occurs across multiple source-linked records, but it should remain a descriptive family rather than a single anatomical fact.
ANL-4.5-003methodological control establishedConfidence: high
Co-witness reporting is not equivalent to independent corroboration
Question: When one witness reports that another person also saw the subject, can that be counted as independent concordance?
Method: Require a separately recovered statement/source for each co-witness before coding independent concordance.
Supporting records
- Todd Neiss / Jeff Martin — Neiss reports Martin's reaction; an independent Martin statement has not yet been recovered. (Neiss source chain)
- Sara Brown / neighbor — Brown reports a neighbor also saw the subject; the neighbor's own statement remains pending. (LOC-0008)
- Big Muddy group — Police file names four witnesses but preserves a group summary, not four independently worded statements. (LOC-0005)
Counterevidence / limitation: A shared official report can still strongly document that multiple people were identified as witnesses; the control concerns independence of testimony, not whether the co-witnesses existed.
Current conclusion: The archive should continue separating 'reported co-witness' from 'independently recovered co-witness statement.'
ANL-4.5-004methodological control establishedConfidence: high
Later detail accretion must remain chronologically separated
Question: Can later-added morphology or interpretation be safely backdated into an earlier account?
Method: Compare earliest recoverable public wording with later testimony; store additions as later accretion unless independently present earlier.
Supporting records
- Todd Neiss — Early morphology is relatively stable, while later research context must remain chronologically distinct. (2007 account vs later interviews)
- Doris Harrison — The recovered 1972 clipping wording is narrower than some later MoMo retellings. (LOC-0004)
- Bob Gimlin — Six-day-post-event testimony is analytically distinct from decades-later interviews. (LOC-0022)
Counterevidence / limitation: Later details can be true even if absent earlier; omission alone is not contradiction.
Current conclusion: Later additions may enrich a record but cannot silently alter the earliest-source record. 'Added later' and 'contradicted' remain separate statuses.
ANL-4.5-005not readyConfidence: high
The current verified subset is not ready for final cross-era prevalence statistics
Question: Can the current exact-locator layer support defensible percentage comparisons between Modern and Historical cohorts?
Method: Readiness assessment against locked cohort denominators and exact-locator coverage.
Supporting records
- Modern matrix — 55 core witnesses / 49 direct visual are the current Modern B-pass checkpoint. (locked denominator)
- Historical matrix — 64 core + 38 candidates; 76 strict direct-visual historical records in the B-pass working dataset. (locked denominator)
- Exact-locator layer — The source-verified subset remains selected and morphology-enriched rather than balanced across the full denominators. (current verified layer)
Counterevidence / limitation: Interim descriptive comparisons remain useful if they are explicitly labeled as selected-subset findings.
Current conclusion: Archive version 4.5 permits qualitative cross-era findings and readiness statements, but not final prevalence percentages.