Redaction should remove identity, not evidence logic

The public version of my petition protects private identities.

Names and contact details can be removed. A recommender can become **the co-founder of the organization**. A judging inviter can become **the event organizer**.

But useful redaction has a second job.

It has to preserve enough context for the evidence to remain understandable.

If every person becomes **someone** and every organization becomes **a company**, the private information is gone, but so is the reasoning.

For each redacted reference, a public copy can still preserve:

• the person's relationship to the work
• whether they had direct knowledge
• the initiative, role, or period they could describe
• the fact the document was used to verify
• the boundary between their statement and the public record

That is different from exposing an identity.

It explains why the source belongs in the petition.

This distinction matters when a public petition is meant to help another reader study structure. The reader does not need a private name to see that one letter explains personal responsibility while an event page verifies that the event happened.

They do need the evidence jobs to remain visible.

Before sharing a public copy, make two columns.

In the first, list identity details: names, personal contact information, signatures, private addresses, and anything else that should not travel.

In the second, list evidence function: relationship, firsthand knowledge, relevant dates, documented activity, and the claim the source can support.

Remove the first column.

Keep the second legible.

Redaction should protect the person without turning the petition back into a puzzle.