Begin with the decision, not the folder
An evaluation summary says a candidate met its acceptance criteria, but the linked run no longer opens. Another document names a dataset without a version. The decision owner has changed.
The immediate task is not necessarily to rerun everything. First establish what can still be reconstructed and what cannot honestly be claimed.
Choose one recorded decision. Capture its conclusion, date if available, stated criteria and approving owner. Then follow each supporting claim backwards. Finding a plausible artifact in project storage does not establish that it supported this particular decision.
Build a link manifest
Use a small manifest rather than another narrative summary. For each claim, record:
- The evidence expected to support it.
- Its original reference and current location, if recovered.
- The dataset, rubric and run identifiers actually recorded.
- Whether the connection is confirmed, uncertain or missing.
- The person responsible for the next action.
Keep the original reference even when replacing a broken link. This preserves the distinction between repairing access and changing the evidence attached to a decision.
An accessible report may still be insufficient. If its dataset version differs from the decision record, mark that discrepancy rather than silently treating the files as equivalent.
Reconstruction and new testing answer different questions
Reconstruction asks what evidence supported the decision at the time. A new test asks what happens under the conditions we can execute now. Those questions can both matter, but they are not interchangeable.
Running today's candidate against a reconstructed dataset does not recover yesterday's missing result. Dependencies, inputs or criteria may have changed, even if the run appears similar.