Write one relevant item per row and label it as a directly confirmed fact, a statement or an unknown. Add the source and the action it affects. The goal is not to collect the most information; it is to identify the information needed for your next decision.
When you are emotionally invested, a conversation can feel like evidence for several things at once. A request arrives, an explanation follows and a deadline creates pressure. A simple record slows down the jump from “someone said this” to “this has been established.”
Start with one question at the top
Use a bounded decision: “Should I book a non-refundable fare this week?” or “Am I agreeing to recurring support?” Avoid “Is this person trustworthy?” That broader question invites you to interpret every detail as proof of a character verdict.
The decision determines what belongs in the table. Someone's unrelated personal history does not belong there simply because it might be interesting. Do not gather passwords, identity documents, intimate media or private records to fill the page.
The three columns
| Confirmed fact | Statement | Material unknown |
|---|---|---|
| A message requests $500 | The amount covers a repair | What the repair includes |
| A proposed date was discussed | The person expects to be available | Whether time off is confirmed |
| A booking page displays a fare | Someone calls it refundable | The actual cancellation conditions |
The table uses fictional examples. Each row should preserve its limitations. A screenshot of a statement still belongs in the statement column for the underlying claim, even if the screenshot itself is real.
Add a source, not a confidence score
Next to an item, write where it came from: “my transfer receipt,” “message received on 2 October,” “my approximate memory,” or “current provider terms.” If two accounts conflict, preserve both with their dates. Do not overwrite the older statement just because the newer one sounds clearer.
A confidence score can look precise without being meaningful. For this purpose, concrete source labels usually do more work. “Not independently checked” is an honest description; “83% credible” is not justified by this worksheet.
Add an action column
For each unknown, ask what you would do differently depending on the answer. If the answer would not affect the current commitment, it may not need to be resolved now.
For example, the cancellation deadline for a hotel may directly change whether you book today. The precise reason for an old social media post may have little bearing on that booking. This does not tell you what to feel; it helps you keep the current task manageable.
Keep interpretations on a separate line
You might write: “I worry the changing date means the meeting will not happen.” That is a real concern, but it is an interpretation. Beneath it, ask: “Which observable arrangement would let me plan without relying on that interpretation?”
An alternative explanation is not automatically true either. Listing several possibilities should increase clarity about what remains unknown, not manufacture reassurance.
Finish with a useful question
Turn the most consequential gap into one respectful request: “Can we agree the first meeting date and time before I book?” Note what a useful answer would establish and what it would still leave open.
Then write the next action and review point. Keep the record short enough to use in a conversation. The finished page should not be a dossier for interrogating someone.
Source boundary
This three-column format is an original Before Further organisational suggestion, not a diagnostic or legally validated evidentiary method. The CFPB source is included for its separate general spending-record tools, not as evidence that it developed or endorsed this framework. See the complete sample memo for how the labels carry into a decision.