Framework

This is the operating frame for ven.plus: what we accept, how we verify, and how we show uncertainty over time.

Quick map

Think: operations, not content

Write what happened, where, when, and what mattered in practice. No narrative needed.

Confidence ≠ truth

Confidence is a current estimate of support. It can go up, down, or expire.

Friction is intentional

If reality is messy, the system should show it plainly instead of smoothing it over.

Time is part of the data

Every entry is dated. The same thing can be true today and false next month.

1) What this framework is

If a sentence can’t hold up over time, it doesn’t belong here.

ven.plus is context infrastructure: a living directory that documents what exists, what works, what doesn’t, and what is myth—starting in Caracas.

The goal is not completeness. The goal is to reduce uncertainty with dated, explicit, verifiable context.

2) What we accept

Short + dated beats detailed-but-undated.

We accept inputs that can be grounded in observation and time.

Direct observations (what you saw / used).Recent operational experience (how it worked in practice).Changes in access or reliability (what shifted, what broke, what resumed).Context that affects execution (hours, payment methods, requirements, constraints).

3) What we don’t accept

If it can’t be checked (even roughly), it stays out—or stays marked.

We reject anything that increases noise or turns the system into narrative.

Opinion without observation.Predictions or forecasts.Political narrative or advocacy.“Someone told me…” without corroboration.Information without a date or timeframe.

4) What “confidence” means here

Confidence is an output with inputs. It’s not a vibe.

Confidence is not truth. It is not consensus. It is a current estimate of support, based on available inputs.

We show confidence as a practical signal: how much the entry is backed today, and what limits apply.

5) Verification layers

Conflicts are not failures. They’re signals.

Confidence is built through layers. Not everything reaches the same level.

Single observation (useful, but fragile).Independent corroboration (separate sources, same claim).Consistency over time (still true across checks).Conflict handling (contradictions are visible, not hidden).

6) Friction

Less certainty, more clarity.

Friction is a signal of seriousness. When reality is messy, the system should not pretend it’s smooth.

We ask for context because it prevents overconfidence. If something is uncertain, we show it plainly and date it.

7) Time and versioning

Old data isn’t deleted. It’s dated, downgraded, or archived.

Everything drifts. Entries can expire, degrade, or change.

We do not rewrite history. We show what was known, when it was known, and how it evolved.

8) Technology (AI as support)

AI assists structure. Humans own responsibility.

AI helps organize, cross-reference, and highlight inconsistencies.

AI does not validate. AI does not invent. Unsupported claims remain marked.

9) Corrections

If you disagree, great—bring dates and constraints.

Corrections are not a community feature. They are the quality mechanism.

Disagreement is useful when it comes with context and dates. The system improves through correction.

If you can correct something, do it.

Short inputs with context beat long stories. If it changed, say when it was true and what limits apply.

Contribute information