---
title: "Separate source notes from a publishable explanation"
url: https://memory.wiki/fnhmzrRa
updated: 2026-09-15T09:23:23.011Z
source: "memory.wiki"
---
# Separate source notes from a publishable explanation

Research notes and public explanations have different jobs. Notes preserve uncertainty and details; an explanation helps a reader understand a question without seeing the whole investigation.

Before publishing, copy the relevant material into a separate draft. Preserve source links in the original notes, then give the public draft a short introduction that states its scope. Label assumptions rather than silently converting them into facts.

For each important claim, ask what a reader would need to check it. Add a source where possible. If a source is unavailable or the result is provisional, say so next to the claim instead of burying the caveat at the bottom.

A tool such as [dochost](https://dochost.io) can turn that Markdown or HTML draft into a shareable web page. The publishing step does not verify the research or decide which information is suitable for public distribution.

Review the published copy as a new reader. Remove unexplained abbreviations, private notes, and references such as “as discussed above” that depended on the original conversation. Keep the research archive separate from the link you distribute.

---

## Summary
Research notes and public explanations serve different purposes, so you should draft separate documents to ensure clarity for the reader. When publishing, label assumptions clearly and provide sources directly next to each claim to maintain transparency.

## Themes
- knowledge management
- publishing workflows
- research documentation
- information architecture

## Key takeaways
- Research notes should preserve uncertainty while public explanations should focus on reader understanding.
- Public drafts require a short introduction to define the scope of the information.
- Assumptions must be labeled clearly rather than converted into stated facts.
- Claims should be supported by immediate source citations rather than buried caveats.
- Published copies must be scrubbed of internal references and unexplained abbreviations.

## Insights
- Research notes and public explanations serve distinct functions and should be physically separated to maintain clarity.
- The act of publishing is a transformation process that requires removing internal context rather than just a distribution step.
- Labeling assumptions explicitly is more effective than attempting to hide them within a polished narrative.

## Open questions / gaps
- What criteria should be used to determine which information is suitable for public distribution?