# Report Proximity as a Fact Without Assigning Motive ## Claim A source's proximity to the person they acted against — hired by them, publicly praised by them weeks earlier — is worth reporting as a fact on its own, without stating or guessing why they acted. <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ## Scope & conditions - The discipline is to publish the relationship and stop, letting the reader weigh it rather than supplying a motive the reporting cannot support. - Distinct from proximity-as-cause, which is the error this avoids: the relationship is the fact, the reason is not. - Especially load-bearing where the parties are named individuals who can be harmed by an invented motive. - Requires the proximity itself to be documented, not inferred from a photograph or a follow. ## Evidence From CMSWire's reporting on the Automattic board action, which records board members' documented prior relationships with Mullenweg without characterizing their reasons. ## Links - [[A Contact Claim Needs a Named Transfer Not Just Proximity]] — the same boundary from the other direction — proximity is reportable, causation needs a named transfer - [[Original Reporting Identifies Itself by an Obtained Statement and a Named Non-Answer]] — the same piece, and the same restraint about what it claims to know - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Evidence & Claims Literacy MOC]] — the claims-literacy thread on restraint about what a source establishes.