FBI-UAP-PR006, Digital Recreation, Narrative Statement 3-2, Western United States Event, 2023

This file from the FBI is a single-sensor military capture - one instrumented platform, one modality, time-stamped and recoverable rather than a witness account. The rubric scores it below a multi-sensor capture because cross-modality confirmation (the same object seen by two independent sensor types at once) is the higher bar on this axis, and that confirmation isn't present here.

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 was released as open by the FBI after a formal review process concluded - not simply logged and left pending. That's a stronger disposition signal than 'unresolved, no review': a review actually happened, and remaining open is the FBI's own published conclusion from it, not an absence of one.