Contribute

This registry runs on a fixed content schema, not free-form writing. Every site page is generated from one YAML file that has to fill in the same fields, in the same order, every time. This is what keeps every page consistent and defensible — read Sourcing Standards first.

How to submit a fact or a new site

1. Open an issue or pull request against the site's content repository with the proposed addition.
2. State the exact claim, the exact section it belongs in, and the exact source (link + publisher + date).
3. A reviewer checks the source against the sourcing hierarchy and confirms the claim matches what the source actually says.
4. Approved additions are merged with a visible "added by / reviewed by" note.

Where review stands today

The editorial standard this registry is built to reach is that no one publishes their own unreviewed additions, including a page's own maintainer. That standard is not yet operating: the registry is currently written and checked by a single maintainer, and there is no second reader to route submissions through. Saying so plainly is more useful than implying a review queue that does not exist.

What runs instead is verification against the source documents themselves, recorded in public. Every page carries a Corrections Log, and those logs are where the checking is visible — including the entries from August 2026, where four claims failed verification against the White House and Department of Energy texts and were corrected or removed rather than quietly kept.

Each file records its last edit and editor in a review block, with reviewed_by left empty until there is a reviewer to credit. Onboarding a second reader is the change that would most improve this site, and it is the contribution most worth offering.

New site checklist

• At least one primary source confirming the threat is active, not merely rumored.
• Enough historical record to complete Section 01 without guessing.
• An assigned site maintainer.

Files that don't yet meet this bar are published with publication_status: watching: listed on the registry under a separate heading, carrying a banner that says which sections are genuinely undocumented. They are shown rather than hidden so the gap in the record is visible, but they are not presented as complete case files.

Place files and system-wide files

Most case files document a specific parcel of public land and carry coordinates that place them on the registry map. Some document federal policy that applies everywhere at once — agency budgets, leasing programs, the standard for environmental review — and have no honest coordinates. Those set scope: systemic, are kept off the map, and are collected on System-Wide. Both kinds use the identical schema, sourcing standard, and corrections policy.

Content file schema

Each case file is one YAML file with these top-level keys: site_name, slug, location, designation_type, governing_agency, threat_category, status, coordinates, last_verified, maintainer, scope, publication_status, review {last_edit, edited_by, reviewed_by, note}, one_line_summary, sections {history, current_threat, impact_environmental, impact_cultural, impact_economic, impact_legal, impact_health, consultation_status}, contractors, opposition_support, timeline, sources_primary, sources_secondary, action, corrections_log.

scope is place or systemic. publication_status is published or watching. Cross-file analysis lives in content/patterns.yml, which may only index claims already sourced on a case file — it carries no independent claims of its own.

Citations

Inline citations are written [[source-id]] in any prose field and resolve to the numbered entry with that id in sources_primary or sources_secondary. A marker that matches no source id fails the build rather than rendering a dead reference — a claim that appears cited but isn't is worse than an obvious gap.

Prefer the primary document over reporting about it. If a news article gives a figure that appears in a Federal Register notice, agency release, or court filing, cite that document and use the secondary source only for what it independently establishes. Each source's supports field should say precisely which claims it carries, and should note any limitation — vendor self-reporting, an advocacy organization's own characterization, a figure not yet confirmed against the underlying text.