FBI September 2023 Sighting - Serial 004

No sensor, camera, or instrument backs this observation - it is testimony, relayed through the FBI, and scored on the rubric's lowest sensor-quality tier for that reason. That doesn't bear on the witness's credibility (a separate axis); it reflects only that nothing beyond human perception recorded the event.

The witness here is FBI personnel, entering the report into the federal investigative system through standard channels. That's a real credibility tier - trained federal investigative staff - though the rubric ranks it below mission-active military or astronaut testimony because the posture is reactive (responding to a report) rather than an active operational context.

On corroboration, this file from the FBI - like every single-tier file in the PURSUE archive - is a single-witness or single-instrument capture per the released metadata. The rubric doesn't infer multi-witness confirmation the summaries don't actually establish; this score reflects the honest limit of what was released, not a judgment about the underlying event.

The released file contains no speed, acceleration, or vector data precise enough to score on the kinematic axis - and that's true archive-wide, not specific to this file. The rubric declines to infer kinematic anomaly from a witness's narrative estimate of how fast something moved; that itself says something about what PURSUE actually released: descriptive accounts, not flight-path telemetry.

Every file in the archive, including this one, scores this tier: a conventional explanation was considered in the released record but isn't treated as dispositive. That's a pattern in how war.gov's own summaries are written - they consistently hedge against strong conclusions either way - and the rubric takes that hedging at face value rather than resolving it for them.

This file from the FBI is catalogued as unresolved, with no formal review process having concluded - logged into the system, but not yet finalized by any review. The rubric treats that differently from 'open after review,' because the absence of a completed review is itself part of the file's status, not a placeholder for one.