A model to test. Evidence to share.

Onzenu's ambition is to connect education, restoration, farming and policy. The website should make the distinction between that ambition and what has actually been demonstrated easy to see.

Three kinds of information. Clearly separated.

The proposal

What Mauro's document sets out to achieve, including approaches that have not yet been tested on these farms.

Evidence from elsewhere

Research and documented examples that help explain an idea. Each source needs its place, date, scale, method and limits. A useful precedent is not an Onzenu result.

Evidence from the farms

Dated observations and results from the farms, with the methods and management context needed to interpret them. No such verified results are presented in this draft.

Share the method, not only the success.

A result becomes more useful when someone can see how it was reached. Farm records should explain what was measured, what changed, what else might explain the result and what remains uncertain.

Publishing a correction is part of that work, not a reason to hide the original question.

Conservation and public policy.

Mauro's document argues for tax treatment that better supports land dedicated to conservation. The website can explain that proposed policy goal, but it should not present the document's description of current taxes as verified law.

A public policy page will need current legal sources, the relevant jurisdiction and a clear account of who is making the proposal before it can go further.

Build trust before making bigger claims.

No impact counters without records. No implied partners without their permission. No outcome presented as proved simply because it appears in a presentation.

The aim is a website people can learn from and return to as the work develops.