Methodology
How WPH explains trust, translation paths, and documentation coverage
WPH distinguishes works from editions and records trust metadata at the edition layer. These notes explain how core terms such as indirect translation, disclosure, disputed attribution, trust score, and cover source are used across the product.
Translation Paths
Direct, indirect, and path clarity
WPH distinguishes between direct translation and indirect translation. A direct translation moves from the source language into the edition language without an intermediary language. An indirect translation passes through one or more intermediary languages.
Path clarity describes how fully the route is documented. Some records have a complete chain, some identify only source and target, and some remain incomplete because the underlying publishing record does not disclose enough evidence yet.
WPH does not render a false chain when data is missing. Incomplete records stay visibly incomplete rather than being guessed into certainty.
Trust Signals
Disclosure, attribution confidence, and disputed records
Disclosure refers to whether the translation route was transparently disclosed in the available source material. A route may be documented through publisher metadata, catalog context, translator statements, or editorial review, but WPH still distinguishes between disclosed, undisclosed, and unknown cases.
Attribution confidence refers to how clearly contributor claims are supported by available evidence. Contributor and path metadata may be verified, source-verified,unverified, or disputed.
Disputed does not mean WPH is making a moral judgment. It indicates that attribution, translation-route reporting, or verification status is contested or inconsistent across sources.
Rights Discovery
What the trust score does and does not mean
On rights-discovery surfaces, WPH may show a trust score. This is a compact, internal-facing summary of how well a rights opportunity is documented.
A higher score usually reflects clearer provenance, stronger contributor or translation evidence, and more complete rights context. It does not mean rights are commercially better, legally cleaner, or more important.
Trust score is distinct from market completeness. A record can have a modest trust score simply because key metadata remains sparse.
Cover Provenance
How WPH labels cover source and attribution
WPH distinguishes between official publisher covers, trusted bibliographic source covers, and editorial placeholders. Cover source describes where the visible image came from, not whether WPH owns or controls the image.
When a direct publisher source is known, WPH labels that clearly. When a cover is shown through a trusted bibliographic source such as Open Library or Google Books, WPH marks that as such. When no trustworthy image is available, WPH uses an editorial placeholder instead of implying certainty.
For policy detail, see the public Cover & Attribution Policy.
Documentation Coverage
Documentation completeness is not the same as trust
WPH also tracks a lightweight documentation completeness state. This reflects how many core metadata fields are currently present for a record, such as author attribution, release date, language, translation path, rights context, provenance, and cover metadata.
A record may be well documented, partially documented, or an early record. This is a coverage signal, not a reliability verdict.
Completeness and trust stay separate because a record can be sparse but honest, or detailed but still disputed.